HV  20  . H4  F6  1908 
Fluegel,  Maurice,  1831?- 
1911 . 

The  humanity,  benevolence 
and  charitv  leaislation  of 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/humanitybenevoleOOflue 


The  Humanity,  Benevolence  and 
Charity  Legislation  of  the  Pentateuch 

And  the  Talmud. 


In  Parallel  with  the  Laws  of  Hammurabi,  the 
Doctrines  of  Egypt,  the  Roman  XII  Tables 
and  Modern  Codes ;  the  Sequel  of  “Spirit 
of  the  Biblical  Legislation.’’ 


BY  MAURICE  FLUEGEL, 

BALTIMORE,  U.  S.  A. 


Author  of  Religious  Rites — Spirit  of  Biblical  Legislation — Messiah 
Ideals,  Vol.  I.  Jesus  of  Nazareth — Vol.  II.  Paul  and  N. 
Testament,  Mohammed  and  Qoran — Zend-Avesta, 
Brahmanism  and  Buddhism — Israel,  the  Biblical 
People — Philosophy,  Qabbala  and  Vedanta, 
etc.,  works  published. 


COPYRIGHT  8ECURED  TO  THE  AUTHOR. 

PUBLISHERS,  H.  FLUEGEL  &  CO.,  BALTIMORE. 
Press  of  King  Bros.,  Baltimore. 

1908. 


The  Author's  Works  to  be  Published: 


Moses,  the  Liberator  and  the  Decalogue  Legislation. 

The  Biblical  Holidays,  and  their  ethical  bearings. 

The  Mosaic  Genesis,  parallelled  with  other  cosmogonies. 

The  Biblical  Patriarchs,  as  historical  Era. 

The  Mosaic  State  and  Church,  Leviticus. 

Religious  Rites,  Views  and  Sanitary  Laws — II  Edition. 

The  IV.  Book  of  Moses. 

The  V.  Book  of  Moses. 

These  eight  volumes,  and  the  two  already  published, 
exhaustively  treat  of  the  Pentateuch,  the  Bible  and 
Ecligion,  in  their  world-historic  import. 


Philosophy,  Vol.  II.  Zohar,  Thora  and  Science. 

The  Second  Judaean  Commonwealth  and  Maccabean  War. 

Each  volume  of  about  300  pages. 

“  Essays  and  Lectures,”  Historical,  Political,  Theological,  Literary, 
and  “Battles  for  Freedom  and  Renaissance”  are  unfinished. 


DEDICATED 


TO  THE  MEMORY  OF  MY  HONORED  FRIENDS  : 

CHARLES  L.  HALLGARTEN,  Frankfort  0/M, 
and  MORITZ  SIMON,  Hannover,  Germany  ; 

Both  practical  examplars  of  the  Biblical  humanity,  benevolence  and 
charity  ;  both  intuitively  exhibiting  the  noblest  traits  of  their  race  and 
faith  ;  the  one,  a  citizen  of  the  old  and  of  the  new  world,  acting  in 
either  on  a  vast  scale  ;  the  other  a  pattern  of  filial  piety  and  force  of 
character,  founder  of  the  Alex.  Simon  Stiftung,  at  Ahlen  : 

With  a  wreath  of  love  and  veneration  from  the  author. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 


The  Humanity,  Benevolence  and  Charity  Legislation  of  the 
Pentateuch  and  Talmud. 

Page 

Introduction—  The  Biblical  Legislation  and  its  universality .  1 

The  present  volume ;  its  leading  themes  and  issues.  To  my  readers  . .  5 

Chapter  I — The  Mosaic,  Humanitarian  Legislation;  its  spirit ;  its 

detractors ;  the  excavations . .  12 

The  Benevolence  and  Charity  of  the  Pentateuch.  Great  Teachers .  15 

Characteristics  of  the  Mosaic  Benevolence  Laws .  17 

English  Poor-Laws,  Huxley  and  the  Bible .  20 

Causes  of  Poverty.  Right  and  Wrong  Charity .  25 

Biblical  Equality,  Solidarity  and  Sympathy  Universalized .  30 

Biblical  Benevolence  Analyzed.  Joseph  Chamberlain .  31 

The  Pentateuchal  Positive  and  Negative  Benevolence.  Competition. . .  34 

The  Social  Problem  in  Greece,  Rome.  Horace  on  it .  36 

The  Social  Problem  in  the  Pentateuch.  Ireland,  the  Papacy .  40 

Chapter  II — Bible  Positive  Benevolence  Laws.  Sabbath.  Jubilee .  44 

Tithes,  Heaves,  Priestly  and  Levitical,  Poor  and  Festive  Gifts .  47 

Talmud  on  Legal  Poor-gifts,  Heaves,  Tithes,  Festive  Alms .  48 

Maimonides  on  Heaves  and  Oblates  etc . . .  50 

Benevolence  to  Strangers.  The  Canaanites .  55 

Edom,  Rome,  brothers.  Toleration  and  ejection .  58 

Humanity  in  the  Synagogue  and  in  the  Mediaeval  Church .  60 

Usury,  Reproach  and  Israel,  Historically  Reviewed .  62 

Relation  of  Creditor  to  Debtor  in  Pentateuch  and  Talmud .  64 

Shakespeare’s  Shylock — Roman  and  Rabbinical  Laws  on  that .  66 

Chapter  III — Negative  Benevolence  Laws  of  Peiuateuch — II  Moses .  70 

Stranger’s  Rights  Parallelled  with  such  elsewhere .  71 

■  Widows’  and  Orphans’  Rights .  72 

Loan  and  Interest,  Native  and  Alien .  .  73 

Exemption  Laws — Why  Money  Lenders  ? .  75 

Creditor  and  Debtor  in  the  Talmud,  Shylock  and  Rabbinical  Laws .  77 

Property  and  Humanity,  Hammurabi  and  Moses . .  80 

Maimonides  on  Year  of  Release  and  of  Jubilee;  Hillel’s  Innovations... .  81 

Slavery  in  Rabbinical  Jurisprudence.  Maimonides .  86 

Chapter  IV — “  Thou  Shalt  Be  No  Talebearer ”  (II  M.  Laws  continued).  92 

The  Majority,  the  Minority,  “The  Remnant.”  Matthew  Arnold .  95 

“  Return  Thy  Enemy’s  Ox.” — Jesus,  Buddha,  Spinoza  on  that .  97 

“Equal  Justice.”  No  favoritism .  .  99 

Protection  to  Women  Captives — Hillel  and  Gladstone.  Nemesis .  104 

Protection  to  Children.  Primogeniture .  108 


VI 


CONTENTS. 


Page 

Chapter  V— “  The  Rebellious  Son.”  Professor  Schegg  &  the  Talmud. . . .  110 

The  Opposite  Phases  in  the  Talmud— Liberalism  and  Rigorism .  113 

Begard  for  the  Guilty;  the  Brute;  the  Flora .  115 

Protection  to  “  the  Fugitive  Slave  ” .  118 

Married  Woman's  Status  and  Divorce — Mosaism  and  the  Orient  on  that.  119 

The  Schools  of  Hillel  and  Shammai  on  that .  123 

Woman  in  Bible  and  Talmud .  126 

Chapter  VI — Mosaico- Rabbinical  Marriage  Laws .  131 

Mosaico-Rabbinical  Divorce  Laws .  137 

“Ban  of  R.  Gershom.”  The  Marriage  Rings .  139 

Levirate’s  Marriage  (V.  M.  24) ;  Sundry  Other  Laws .  141 

Gleanings  in  Biblical  Benevolence — the  Poor .  143 

Justice  and  Pity .  146 

A  Portion  to  the  Freedman .  .  148 

The  Three  Yearly  Holidays .  149 

Cities  of  Refuge .  150 

Laws  of  War .  152 

Mysterious  Murder — Other  Verses  of  Sympathy .  155 

T  Pledge  of  the  Poor.  Workingman’s  Hire .  158 

Mosaic  Syllabus .  160 

Witchcraft,  Horace  on  it  and  Maimonides .  162 

Chapter  VII — Hammurabi’s  Laws,  Contrasted  with  Pentateuch  and 

Talmud  The  Conqueror  and  the  Liberator . .  170 

Prof.  A.  H.  Sayce  ou  this  Theme — Continuation  of  Mosaism  and  Ham¬ 
murabi  .  197 

The  Twelve  Tables  of  Rome,  Contrasted  with  Pentateuch  Laws .  198 

Chapter  VIII — Bible  and  Babylonia. — Professor  Sayce— The  Two  Civi¬ 
lizations — The  God-Conception  in  Either  Babylonia  and  Egypt .  206 

Revelation  and  Inspiration — Criticism  and  Excavations .  209 

Professor  Delitzsch’s  Babel-Bible  Controversy .  213 

Professor  Sayce  Continued.  Merodakh,  Ea .  220 

Ea,  Ih,  Ehih,  Continued .  ....  222 

Professor  Sayce  Continued.  Doctrines  Contrasted . ‘ .  228 

Professor  Sayce  Verbatim .  230 

Soul,  Hereafter,  Creation,  God  and  Morality  Concepts .  233 

Formal  Similarities  and  Essential  Contrasts .  239 

Babel-Bible  Controversy  in  Germany — Delitzsch .  .  249 

Chapter  IX — Egyptology,  Bible  und  Talmud .  256 

Egyptian  Immortality  Conception  .  257 

Morality  in  Religion .  259 

Maspero,  Egypt  and  Moses .  263 

Professor  Sayce  Concluded — Egypt,  Babylonia  and  Bible .  265 


CONTENTS.  Vll 

Page 

Chapter  X — Survey  of  Mosaic  Humanity  etc  Laws .  268 

Character  of  the  Biblical  and  Talmudical  Benevolence .  273 

Talmudical  Views  Continued .  279 

Estimate  of  Poverty — Jewish  Scholars .  280 

Maimonides  on  Charity  Concluded .  283 

Criticism  and  Conclusion .  286 

Love  Principle  in  Mosaism  and  Elsewhere .  292 

Mosaic  Ethics,  Herbert  Spencer  and  Agnostics .  296 

Mosaism,  the  United  States  and  the  Old  World .  298 

Mosis’  Hammer  and  Nail.  End .  305 

Errata. .  307 


The  Humanity,  Benevolence  and  Charity  Leg¬ 
islation  of  the  Pentateuch. 


Introduction. 

Weighty,  grave  and  majestic  are  the  words  and  sentences  of 
the  Legislator,  introducing  his  Law-book  to  the  people,  on  the 
eve  of  a  great  expedition,  the  conquest  of  their  ancestral  land : 
“How,  O  Israel,  hearken  unto  the  statutes  and  ordinances  which 
I  teach  you  to  do,  that  you  may  live  and  take  hold  of  the  land 
which  Ilivh  (the  Supreme  Being),  the  God  of  your  fathers,  giv- 
eth  you.  .  .  .  Observe  and  perform  them,  for  this  is  your 
wisdom  and  your  understanding  before  the  eyes  of  the  na¬ 
tions,  .  .  .  who,  considering  these  laws,  will  say :  This  is 
indeed  a  great  and  wise  people  .  .  .  with  laws  and  statutes 
so  just!  ....  Take  heed  and  beware  not  to  forget  them 
.  .  .  all  thy  lifetime,  and  let  thy  children  and  children’s  chil¬ 
dren  well  know  them”  (V.  M.,  IV.,  1-10).  “Set  your  hearts 
unto  all  I  recommend  you !  ...  It  is  no  vain  thing  for  you 

.  .  .  It  concerns  your  life,  .  .  .  and  by  it  you  shall  live  long 
in  the  land  you  are  going  to  inherit”  (V  M.,  XXXII,  45-47). 

Indeed,  grand  and  solemn  is  the  introduction,  freighted  with 
the  burden  and  the  responsibility  of  the  welfare  of  a  nascent 
Commonwealth:  “Learn  and  realize  the  Thora  (Law),  that  you 
may  live  and  own  your  country.” 

And  this  is  no  poetry ;  it  is  stern  fact  and  realty ;  the  Mosaic 
Laws  are  the  condition,  sine  quae  non ,  of  a  thriving  Society; 
the  symbols  and  forms  thereof  are  the  external  vessel,  the  laws 
and  principles,  with  their  broad  humanity  and  benevolence,  jus¬ 
tice  and  truth,  are  the  essence  and  sinew,  intimately  bound  up 
with  individual  and  national  freedom  and  welfare.  To  show 
this,  to  prove  this,  will  be  the  task  and  scope  of  these  pages. 
Reader,  peruse  them  in  the  same  spirit  of  earnestness,  charity 
and  justice,  and,  I  believe  that  you,  as  I,  will  coincide  with  the 
lawgiver:  “Hear,  0  Israel-mankind,  and  perform  these  enact¬ 
ments,  that  you  may  live  and  prosper.” 


2 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


Pondering  over  these  and  numerous  other  similar  verses,  we 
find  them  dictated  by  the  eternal  genius  of  history,  by  the  holy 
spirit  of  absolute  truth.  It  purports  that  the  strength  of  Israel 
is  in  his  law.  The  nations  wonder  at  his  many  apparent  pecu¬ 
liarities,  at  his  very  existence  in  spite  of  a  thousand  obstacles. 
He  is  qualitatively  so  puny,  qualitatively  so  potent  and  influen¬ 
tial  ;  scattered  and  broken  into  fragments,  without  territory,  ar¬ 
mies  or  leaders,  prejudiced  and  downtrodden;  still  enduring, 
elastic,  undismayed,  wielding  a  powerful  influence  on  the  march 
of  civilization;  and  this,  not  by  the  Bismarckian  policy  of  pow¬ 
der  and  lead,  or  the  Roman  polity  of  divide  et  impera,  but  by  his 
mind,  his  national  psyche,  his  energy,  his  indomitable  self-con¬ 
trol,  by  the  great  humanitarian  scope  of  his  labors,  his  science, 
arts  and  industry ;  by  the  factors  of  peace  and  civilization. 
What,  then,  is  the  secret  of  that  strength  and  endurance  ?  These 
pages  will  reveal  it.  That  puny  people’s  great  weight  lies  in  his 
laws ;  it  lies  in  his  Pentateuchal  pact,  combined  of  doctrine, 
custom,  morality  and  law,  justice  tempered  with  sympathy. 
Scan  the  pages  of  universal  history,  everywhere  you  find  force 
and  astuteness.  Israel’s  covenant  breathes  -with  justice  and  soli¬ 
darity.  The  ancient  Babylonians,  Assyrians,  Persians,  Egyp¬ 
tians,  Greeks,  Phoenicians,  Romans,  all  cultivated  force,  war 
and  cunning.  Israel  fostered  as  his  highest  national  ideal,  law, 
justice,  equity,  wisdom.  This  legislation  is  his  strength,  the 
secret  of  his  outliving  all  the  conquering  races ;  for,  indeed,  ap¬ 
parently  force  and  cunning  domineer;  really  the  rational,  di¬ 
vine  law  of  justice  and  fitness  rules,  permanently  behind  the 
screen  of  eternity.  As  the  pendulum  is  swinging  to  the  right 
and  the  left,  still  ever  returning  to  its  normal  central  gravita¬ 
tion  point,  even  such  is  human  nature;  its  equilibrium  is  justice 
and  sympathy ;  to  that  it  invariably  comes  back  as  its  normal 
center — that  is,  properly,  Civilization.  Such  is  the  Mosaic  legis¬ 
lation  we  are  studying  here.  Human  passions,  prejudices  and 
selfishness  carry  us  away,  to  and  fro,  yet  the  gravitation  point  is 
normal  and  fixed ;  such  is  the  legislation  of  the  Pentateuch. 

Carefully  studying  their  letter  and  spirit,  with  their  scope  and 
object  in  view,  we  shall  recognize  that  they  are  not  bound  up 


ETERNAL  GENIUS  OF  HISTORY. 


3 


with  country,  nationality  and  time.  No !  They  are  universal  and 
eternal,  destined  for  the  rational  and  moral  human  species  of  all 
ages  and  environments,  absolute,  unconditional  and  unsectarian, 
flowing  from  the  eternal  and  immutable  Source  of  Divinie  jus¬ 
tice  and  wisdom,  fitness  and  goodness ;  of  stem  right,  tempered 
with  mercy;  built  on  the  principles  of  altruism  and  egoism, 
wisely  blended  in  best  proportions;  with  the  aim  of  raising  a 
model  community,  basing  on  equity,  freedom  and  equality,  on 
sympathy  and  solidarity,  on  morality,  education,  work  and  pur¬ 
ity;  a  State,  a  people  and  a  religion  or  Church,  all  hewn  from 
one  block, all  one  and  the  same  subject  from  different  viewpoints, 
with  the  One  God  in  Spirit,  as  the  only  king,  and  law  (the 
Thorn )  as  the  only  judge  and  master.  We  shall  find  these  Mo¬ 
saic  enactments  to  be  one  compact,  vigorous,  logical  body  of 
Laws,  not  a  legal  mosaic  of  different  origins.  We  shall  recognize 
its  Benevolence  to  be  mere  social  justice,  not  pitiful  almsgiv¬ 
ing;  its  charity  and  solidarity  to  stand  upon  the  firm  rock  of 
eternal  right  and  wisdom,  and  all  together  as  the  elements  of 
a  legislation,  a  social  polity  for  entire  future  mankind,  with 
Israel  as  its  temporary  nucleus  and  champion. 

While  assiduously  busy  with  this  peaceful  and  grateful  task 
of  showing  the  vast  humanitarian  scope  and  tendency  of  the 
Mosaic  legislation,  we  hear  from  beyond  the  Atlantic  the  vocif¬ 
erations  of  blind  fanaticism  and  cruel  bigotry,  mingled  with  the 
shrieks  and  tears  of  helpless  humanity,  trampled  under  tyrant’s 
foot,  and  this  in  the  desecrated  name  of  the  God  of  Justice  and 
Mercy,  in  the  name  of  religion  and  nationality,  instituted  to 
unify  and  pacify  mankind.  May  this  volume  be  the  protest 
of  civilization  against  such  stupidities  and  atrocities.  “Alas,1 
once  it  was  dark,  and  innocence  died ;  now  it  is  apparently 
brighter — still  innocence  bleeds.”  These  pages  will  show  that 
the  Bible  teaches  justice  and  benevolence  to  all,  no  race-preju¬ 
dice  and  no  creed-hatred ;  that  all  the  peoples  are  brothers 
and  all  nationalities  sisters;  that  peace  and  good  will  should 
reign  in  the  sacred  name  of  God  and  religion. 

*“  Rousseau’s  Grave.”  by  Schiller. 


4 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


My  latest  volume,  “Philosophy  I.”  was  issued  in  1902.  There 
I  promised  to  publish  at  once  its  second  volume.  But  that  never- 
ceasing  din,  that  horrible  shout  of  inter-racial  warfare  and  mur¬ 
der  coming  from  unhappy  Russia  and  Roumania  stunned  my 
heart  and  lamed  my  pen.  Philosophy,  humanity  and  religion 
stand  aghast  at  the  aspect  of  such  folly  and  cruelty.  So  I  post¬ 
poned  that  volume.  Instead,  kind  Reader,  I  offer  you  this  Bibli¬ 
cal  Legislation  on  Humanity,  Charity  and  Benevolence.  Behold 
here  the  vast  ocean  of  justice,  love  and  forbearance  to  all,  indis¬ 
criminately;  and  if  any  fanatic  foments  pogroms  in  the  name 
of  God  and  the  Bible,  tell  him  he  is  a  fool  and  a  liar ! 

May  I  utilize  this  occasion  to  tender  thanks  to  my  subscribers 
and  readers  in  the  Hew  and  in  the  Old  World,  for  having  fol¬ 
lowed  me  thus  far  and  encouraged  my  publications.  I  hope  and 
request  that  they  may  kindly  continue  so  to  the  end  of  this  en¬ 
tire  series.  They  will  find  that  all  these  volumes  already  pub¬ 
lished,  as  those  yet  to  be  published,  are  one  continuous  series  of 
studies  on  the  moral  sciences,  the  leading  themes  of  history,  soci¬ 
ology,  Law,  Bible,  religion.  They  have  all  one  practical  object 
in  view :  To  show  that  the  Bible  essentially  teaches  the  Religion 
of  Mankind ;  that  the  Bible  and  religion,  in  substance,  are  in 
harmony  with  the  sciences  and  with  humanity ;  that  Israel  and 
his  main  doctrines  are  not  in  antagonism,  but  in  full  and  com¬ 
plete  accord  with  man’s  highest  civilization,  and  noblest  endeav¬ 
ors;  that  he  is  thus  but  mankind’s  advance  guard,  continuing 
the  aspirations  of  the  prophets,  upholding  the  ethical  and  social 
platform  of  the  civilized  races ;  that  he  and  his  teachers  and  ex¬ 
ponents  have  for  these  three  thousand  years  ever  deprecated 
warfare,  egoism  and  over-reaching,  and  have  ever  advocated  uni¬ 
versal  peace  and  justice,  work,  education  and  well-being  for  all. 

In  conclusion,  let  me  utter  my  warm  thanks  to  the  honored 
friends  who  have  encouraged  me  and  my  labors  by  word  and  by 
deed.  Among  these  I  venture  to  mention  Messrs.  Eduard  Co¬ 
hen,  Charles  L.  Hallgarten  and  Henry  Seligman,  of  Frankfurt- 
on-Main;  the  (late)  American  Consul,  Alexander  Simon,  of 
Hannover;  the  Honorable  Jacob  H.  Schiff,  of  Hew  York;  the 
(late)  William  S.  Rayner,  Mendes  Cohen,  and  Joseph  Frieden- 


THE  PRESENT  VOLUME. 


5 


wald,  of  Baltimore ;  the  brothers,  Isaac  W.  and  Bernard  Bern- 
heim,  Louisville,  Ky.,  and  Edwin  Wolf,  of  Philadelphia.  The 
honorable  consciousness  of  having  encouraged  the  writer  and 
substantially  assisted  in  the  publication  of  this  series  of  useful 
works  will  be  their  well-merited  reward.  For  this  series  will  be 
the  literary  monument  erected  to  the  memory  of  the  first  genera¬ 
tion  of  Jewish- American  settlers,  showing  to  future  generations 
that  Israel  is  still  the  custodian  of  the  Bible,  the  people  of  the 
Book. 

The  Present  Volume. 

It  was  in  the  year  1893  when  my  volume,  denominated 
“Spirit  of  the  Biblical  Legislation,”  treating  of  the  Civil,  Po¬ 
litical  and  Agrarian  Mosaic  Laws,  was  published.  Many  years 
have  passed  since,  during  which  time  I  had  ample  opportunity 
to  learn  the  kind  and  favorable  opinion  of  leading  scholars  and 
of  numerous  educated  readers  at  large,  both  here  and  in  Eu¬ 
rope.  Their  judgment  is  decidedly  favorable  to  my  modest 
work,  and  that  encouraged  me  to  continue  these  studies  in  two 
further  volumes  of  the  series  on  the  Biblical  Legislation;  viz, 
“The  Exodus,  Moses,  and  the  Decalogue,”  is  to  be  the  first; 
the  fore-mentioned  tome,  “Biblical  Legislation,”  may  be  consid¬ 
ered  as  the  second ;  and  this  present  labor  is  the  third.  Then, 
years  ago,  I  treated  chiefly  of  the  civil,  political,  social  and 
agrarian  laws  of  the  Pentateuch.  Here  are  discussed  the  insti¬ 
tutions  and  ordinances  on  benevolence  and  charity,  solidarity 
and  humanity  of  Mosaism.  Quite  another  set  of  laws  than 
these,  viz,  the  Ten  Commandments,  are  to  be  discussed  in  the 
first  volume.  This  treatise  is  therefore  to  be  considered  as  the 
closing  volume  of  the  series  of  “Spirit  of  Biblical  Legislation,” 
published  in  1893,  whilst  “Exodus,  Moses  and  the  Decalogue,” 
will  be  published  next,  to  form  the  firm  of  the  trilogy. 

And  whilst  the  subject-matter,  the  chapters,  verses  and  the 
institutions  are  totally  different  in  this  volume  from  the  pre¬ 
ceding  one,  still  the  method,  scope  and  spirit  are  identical,  here 
as  there.  As  there,  so  I  may  say  here,  that :  “I  do  not  presume 
to  convey  the  idea  of  offering  here  a  full  tableau  and  a  complete 


6 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


discussion  of  all  the  Biblical  institutions  of  a  universal  and 
benevolent  character,  but  solely  at  elucidating  their  spirit,  the 
principles  animating  and  pervading  them,  their  starting  point, 
and  their  final  object.”  Here  we  shall  search  for  and  point  out 
the  objects  and  aims  of  the  legislator  in  framing  his  statutes. 
Here,  as  in  the  treatise  first  published,  we  shall  find  that  many 
sections  belong  to  circumstances  and  ages  gone  by;  others 
have  a  present,  realistic,  live  interest ;  whilst  again,  many  others 
are  still  ideal,  not  reached,  even  now,  thousands  of  years  after 
their  promulgation ;  that  though  realistic  and  practical,  yet  now 
practicable,  they  are  still  an  ideal,  a  pium  desideratum,  still  pos¬ 
tulating  environments,  with  individual  and  social  wisdom,  not 
yet  reached  at  the  beginning  of  this  twentieth  century.  Of  all 
these  statutes,  be  they  already  consigned  to  the  past  or  available 
for  the  present,  or  ideal  shemata  for  the  future,  this  volume  will 
attempt,  modestly  but  fearlessly,  to  unravel  the  knot  and  eluci¬ 
date  the  final  objects  in  view,  ethical,  social  and  political. 

The  themes  and  verses  analyzed  in  these  pages  are  selected 
from  among  those  commonly  termed  the  Book  of  the  Covenant,1 
viz, II  M.,  21.  to  25.  chapters,  and  next  from  V  M.,  20.26.,  those 
subjects  which' have  a  charitable,  benevolent  and  humanitarian 
scope,  and  are  exemplifications  of  the  great  principle  of  human, 
social  solidarity.  We  have  paid  here  particular  attention  to  the 
Talmudical  expoundings  and  enactments,  and  have  often  added 
a  close  translation,  a  verbatim  epitome,  of  the  corresponding 
Rabbinical  laws,  frequently  also  in  parallel  with  other  ancient 
and  modern  codes  and  views. 

But  our  times  of  bold  investigation,  research  and  criticism, 
the  new  discoveries  in  Egypt,  Assyria  and  Babylonia,  in  hiero¬ 
glyphic  and  cuneiform  inscriptions,  excavated  during  the  latest 
generations  and  even  in  recent  years,  have  induced  me  to  pay 
more  attention  than  years  ago  to  the  parallels,  the  contrasts,  the 
similarities  and  the  opposites,  which  certain  scholars  believe  to 
have  found  out  between  the  Pentateuch  and  these  newly  dis¬ 
covered  ancient  records.  Some  of  these  critics  and  decipherers 


’Sepher-Ha-Brith  (II  M.,  24-7.) 


THE  PRESENT  VOLUME. 


7 


went  so  far  as  to  declare  that  even  the  leading  institutions,  ideas 
and  doctrines,  those  hitherto  believed  most  peculiar  to  Mosaism, 
to  have  been  borrowed  and  copied  from  the  regions  of  the  Nile 
and  the  Euphrates.  We  have  therefore  offered  here  large  epito¬ 
mes  from  the  Egyptological  and  Babylonian  excavations,  with 
some  of  their  principal  laws  and  doctrines.  So  we  have  here 
reproduced  the  more  important  part  of  the  now  famous  Ham¬ 
murabi  Code,  recently  so  much  talked  about  and  discussed,  in 
juxtaposition  with  the  corresponding  verses  and  enactments  of 
the  Mosaic  Legislation.  And  we  believe  that  these  pages  will 
evidently  show  that,  though,  no  doubt,  the  countries,  old  and 
civilized  long  before  Judaea,  had  elaborated  religious  doc¬ 
trines,  divine  worship,  and  especially  Codes  determining 
civic  right  and  wrong;  and  though  these  previous  codes 
may  be  the  background  and  forerunners  of  the  Mosaic 
legislation,  nevertheless  this  Mosaic  legislation  is  neither 
borrowed,  nor  even  on  a  level  with  Babylonia,  Egypt  or  Phoe¬ 
nicia,  but  that  it  occupies  much  higher  ground,  starts  from  no¬ 
bler  standpoints,  has  a  vaster,  cosmopolitan  horizon,  breathes  a 
purer  atmosphere,  and  has  a  diviner  scope  and  a  higher  social 
object  of  view.  I  believe  these  pages  will  prove  that,  though  the 
pre-historic  civilizations  of  Western  Asia  and  of  North  Africa 
are  the  underground  upon  which  later  J udase  and  the  Pentateuch 
rest,  still  the  Mosaic  Code(  standing  upon  the  shoulders  of  Baby¬ 
lonia,  Egypt  and  Phoenicia,  is  an  infinitely  higher  developed  cre¬ 
ation,  a  genuine  composition  and  fresh  legislation,  looking  far¬ 
ther,  deeper  and  higher  than  its  predecessors ;  hence  it  is  origi¬ 
nal,  independent  and  far  from  being  a  copy  and  imitation. 
It  is  in  its  principles,  motives  and  final  aims  the  grandest, 
divinest  legislation  of  antiquity.  The  volume  will  point  out 
that  monotheism,  with  its  humanitarian  Decalogue,  its  man, 
right,  purity  and  holiness-ideas,  those  of  freedom,  justice,  equal¬ 
ity,  democracy  and  the  subsequent  laws  framed  upon  such  new, 
Mosaic  principles,  are  original  and  peculiar  to  the  Pentateuch 
and  the  Bible  exclusively. 


8 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


This  Volume. 

Thus  the  theme  of  this  treatise  is :  The  Mosaic  Laws  on 
humanity,  charity  and  benevolence,  born  of  the  principles  of 
Monotheism  and  universal  solidarity,  national  as  well  as  inter¬ 
national,  humanitarian.  By  far  the  major  part  of  it  is  devoted 
to  the  discussion  of  hundreds  of  the  sacred  verses  and  themes  of 
private  and  public  interests  and  benefactions  bearing  on  these  is¬ 
sues  ;  in  comparison  with  other  charity  laws  and  other  codes  of 
ancient,  mediaeval  and  modern  times,  down  to  the  workings,  the 
success  and  failings  of  our  own  host  of  United-States  benevo¬ 
lence  institutions.  Whilst  the  minor  part  of  this  volume  is  de¬ 
voted  to  succinct  epitomes  and  close  discussions  of  the  new  finds 
and  discoveries  in  Egypt,  and  especially  in  Babylonia,  the  Code 
of  Hammurabi  and  the  XII  Tables  of  Rome,  in  close  contrast 
and  parallelism  with  the  laws  and  doctrines  of  Mosaism.  The 
volume,  again,  contains  the  refutation  of  the  charge  that  the 
Bible  is  devoid  of  the  principles  of  mercy,  of  sympathy  and  of 
benevolence.  It  shows  that  the  altruistic,  or  love-idea,  of  the 
Hew  Testament  is  simply  a  reflex  from  the  Old  Testament,  ap¬ 
plied  to  its  own  ideal  schemes.  It  shows  further  that  the  sev¬ 
eral  new  agnostic  claims  at  “Perfect  Ethics,”  or  those  of  com¬ 
munistic  patterns,  are  chimeric  and  utopian,  not  able  to  outstrip 
the  far-reaching,  realistic  tendencies  of  the  Pentateuch.  Fi¬ 
nally,  it  shows  that  the  Biblical  Laws  and  doctrines  are  not  bor¬ 
rowed  and  copied  from  either  Egypt,  Canaan  or  Babylonia,  but 
that  they  by  far  excel  and  transcend  all  such  crude  attempts,  be 
they  theological,  moral  or  legal,  of  ancient  Egypt,  Assyria  and 
Babylonia ;  that  Mosaism  is  the  highest  development  of  all  those 
unripe  trials  on  the  Kile  and  the  Euphrates,  originally  and  in¬ 
dependently  elaborated  in  Judaea. 

As  the  first  volume,  so  this  second  one,  logically  and  neces¬ 
sarily  results  in  this  conclusion,  viz,  the  Bible,  as  extant  in  our 
Massoretic  text,  is  no  crude  conglomeration  of  heterogeneous 
treatises,  of  different  ages  and  phases.  Ho !  It  is  a  well-di¬ 
gested  whole ;  an  elaborate  system  of  institutions,  doctrines  and 
laws  for  an  ever-developing,  homogeneous  people,  gradually  to 
unfold  as  a  vast  Israel-mankind,  ever  working,  progressing  and 


THIS  VOLUME. 


9 


advancing  the  human  race,  under  struggle  and  error,  towards 
the  ideal  of  “a  kingdom  of  priests  and  a  holy  nation with  the 
later  agadic  “Kingdom  of  Heaven.”  It  represents  the  highest 
ideas  on  God,  universe,  man,  woman,  State,  right  and  duty, 
freedom  and  labor.  The  aspirations  of  our  present  democracy 
to  unify  mankind  in  a  world-vast  United  States,  the  hopes  of 
our  modern  economists,  moralists  and  philanthropists  are  iden¬ 
tically  the  same  as  those  held  up  in  the  legal  and  the  benevolent 
parts  of  the  Mosaic  Code ;  not  as  in  the  previous  Code  of  Ham¬ 
murabi,  or  the  priestly  philosophems  of  India,  Babylonia  and 
Egypt.  Hence  the  claim  of  certain  sensational  Assyriologists  to 
teach  the  One  God,  right  and  state  idea,  in  the  name  of  Baby¬ 
lon,  instead  of  Sinai  and  Moriah,  is  untenable  and  preposterous. 
A  careful,  unbiased  comparison  will  evidently  prove  it. 

I  conclude  this  introduction  with  the  following  remarks 
which  I  had  the  honor  to  address  in  a  letter  to  the  American 
Oriental  Society,  holding  here,  some  years  ago,  their  convention 
at  the  Johns  Hopkins  University,  viz  : 

“The  daily  Press  is  teeming  with  news,  greatly  alarming  the 
consciences  and  feelings  of  believing  people ;  that  new  discov¬ 
eries  by  excavations  have  been  made  on  the  Kile  and  the  Euphra¬ 
tes,  tending  to  show  that  even  the  leading  features  and  teach¬ 
ings  of  the  Pentateuch  have  been  borrowed  from  these  sources, 
and  especially  from  Hammurabi’s  Code.  In  the  interest  of 
science  and  truth,  allow  me  to  contradict  these  rumors  and  to 
say:  There  is  very,  very  little  resemblance  between  Hammu¬ 
rabi’s  Stela  and  the  Mosaic  Laws.  Indeed,  there  is  between 
them  no  more  resemblance  than  between  a  low  stage  of  society 
and  the  highest  civilization.  The  laws  and  doctrines  of  Manu, 
Confucius,  Zarathustra  or  Pharoah  Ivhu-n-Aten  certainly  con¬ 
tain  in  rudiment  many  views  and  enactments  which  are  found 
also  in  the  Pentateuch ;  but  we  meet  them  here  in  an  infinitely 
higher  stage  of  development,  fully  elaborated,  logically  system¬ 
atized,  and  from  a  new  standpoint,  viz,  that  of  ethical  Mono¬ 
theism,  with  justice,  truth  and  morality,  purity  and  holiness, 
as  the  will  of  the  One  God  in  spirit  (Exod.  20  and  Levit.  19  ch.). 


10 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


It  is  true  that  in  China,  India,  Babylonia,  Canaan,  Phoenicia 
and  Egypt  we  find  scattered  rays  and  single  elements  of  such 
teaching's  and  views,  but  they  are  there,  isolated,  incoherent, 
amidst  a  heap  of  rubbish  and  myth,  of  priestcraft,  king-craft 
and  superstition.  In  Moses,  the  Prophets,  the  Psalms  etc.,  these 
elements  are  compact,  homogeneous,  carefully  sifted,  purified 
from  mythic  dross,  elaborated  and  harmonized  into  a  logical, 
concrete  system,  a  live-Code,  a  religious,  moral  and  social  legis¬ 
lation,  a  national  organic  Law,  to  become  the  cornerstone  for 
the  erection  of  a  new  State-pattern,  an  ethical  guide  and  ever¬ 
lasting  Rule  of  Conduct,  for  an  incipient  people,  with  the  osten¬ 
sible  intent  and  the  avowed  purpose  of  gradually  to  expand  and 
become  the  law  of  civilized  mankind. 

How  this  grand  and  divine  aspiration  history  shows  to  be 
slowly  realizing  itself,  in  the  West,  through  Christianity,  and 
in  the  East  through  Mohammedanism;  both  reacting  upon  In¬ 
dia,  China  and  the  entire  globe.  Hence,  Monotheism,  God-holy 
and  perfect,  and  man  to  be  holy  and  moral,  in  a  society  free 
and  equal,  and  as  happy  as  man  is  capable  to  be,  that  is  the 
object  of  the  Biblical  State.  That  organic  Law,  with  such  a 
program  and  aspiration,  that  is  original  to  the  Bible ;  that  plat¬ 
form  has  been  first  put  forward  in  the  Pentateuch  by  the  He¬ 
braic  Prophets,  and  continued  by  their  successors,  West  and 
East.  Of  that  the  Laws  of  Hammurabi  have  no  trace  and  no 
idea,  nor  Babylonia,  nor  Egypt.  What  they  may  contain  is, 
no  more  and  no  less,  than  what  the  barbarian  may  have  in  com¬ 
mon  with  the  civilized  man,  the  root  with  the  fruit.  There  is 
no  wisdom  and  no  utility  whatsoever  in  trying  to  shift  the  cen¬ 
ter  of  civilization,  and  substitute  a  recently  discovered  inscrip¬ 
tion,  doctrine  or  Code,  to  the  Bible.  ‘Wliat  is,  is  good,’  cor¬ 
rectly  argued  J.  J.  Rousseau.  That  the  prophetic  Scriptures 
have  in  the  course  of  3,000  years  gradually  become  the  ethical 
guide  of  civilized  man,  whilst  other  codes  and  doctrines  have 
been  shelved  and  buried,  that  conclusively  shows  the  crit¬ 
ically  and  correctly  understood  Bible  to  be  the  highest  develop¬ 
ment  of  human  aspirations ;  and  this  highest  development  is  di- 


THE  RESULT  OF  HISTORY. 


11 


vine  inspiration;  this  constitutes  it  as  the  Word  of  God;  to 
cavil  against  it  is  not  liberalism,  but  sensationalism  or  anti- 
Semitism.  Mankind  will  not  profit  or  improve  by  substituting 
the  Babylonian  Mountain-house  of  Bel-Merodaeh  for  the  ven¬ 
erable  Mount-Moriah  of  Ihvh. 

Maurice  Fluegel. 

Baltimore,  U.  S.  A.,  April ,  1908. 


12 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


CHAPTER  I. 

The  Humanity  and  Charity  Laws  ol  the  Pentateuch, 


The  Pentateuch,  its  Spirit  and  its  Detractors. 

Many  and  various  are  the  detractors  and  cavilers  of  the  letter 
and  the  spirit  of  Mosaism  and  the  Bible.  Such  opponents  hail 
from  divers  epochs  and  quarters ;  from  other  sects  and  periods ; 
from  infidels,  agnostics  and  hypercritics ;  from  olden  times,  mod¬ 
ern  times  and  present  times.  In  ages  gone  by,  one  often  heard 
the  claim  boldly  advanced  that  the  Bible,  the  Mosaic  Pentateuch 
especially,  is  but  Law,  the  expression  of  severe  justice,  the  fine 
feeling  and  accurate  balance  of  mine  and  thine ;  that  its  God  is  a 
“jealous  and  revengeful  one,  who  visits  the  guilt  of  the  fathers 
upon  the  children  to  the  third  and  fourth  generation that 
its  code  are  the  rigorous  chapters  21-24th  of  section,  Judg¬ 
ments,  “ Mishpatim ,”  basing  upon  the  axiomatic  formula,  “Eye 
for  eye,  tooth  for  tooth,  hand  for  hand,  and  foot  for  foot  ”  and 
this  draconic  lex  talionis,  the  principle  of  retaliation,  of  revenge, 
is  its  pivot;  but  that  with  the  New  Testament  era,  such  parties 
used  to  argue,  has  dawned  a  higher  religion ;  there  a  nobler  law 
and  a  diviner  principle  have  opened  upon  mankind,  viz,  that  of 
love  and  sympathy,  of  spontaneous,  altruistic  goodness,  of  love 
disinterested ;  a  deep,  sweet,  humane  instinct  that  prompts  man 
to  do,  not  only  what  is  even,  exact,  just  and  right,  but  what  is 
noble,  generous  and  ideal ;  to  do  what  we  should  like  to  be  done 
to  us  by  others,  by  some  genius  or  fairy  from  fairyland ;  that 
higher  religion  of  divinized  humanity,  charity,  and  love,  that 
creed  teaching  not  only :  “Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thy¬ 
self ,”  hut  more :  “Thou  shalt  love  thy  enemy  as  thyself,” — that 
higher  religious  phase  is  not  taught  by  Mosaism ;  for  that  a  new 
revelation  was  necessary,  which  constitutes  man  not  only  as  a 
rational  being,  but  a  benevolent  and  sympathetic  one;  for  that 


THE  PENTATEOCH,  ITS  SPIRIT  AND  ITS  DETRACTORS. 


13 


a  new  covenant,  a  new  religious  dispensation  had  to  appear 
upon  man’s  ethical  horizon,  and  that  is  Christianity. 

So  people  used  to  argue  since  the  times  of  Paul  to  that  of 
Lavater,  Herder  and  Schleiermacher,  occasionally  even  now. 
But  that  phase  of  sectarian,  one-sided  reasoning  appears  to  be 
passing  away.  In  our  own  generation  we  are  hearing1  rather  an¬ 
other  strain  of  argument.  Persons  depreciating  and  deprecat¬ 
ing  alike,  the  Hebraic  Bible  and  the  Gospel  and  all  positive  reli¬ 
gions  and  creeds,  declare  that:  Neither  the  Prophets  nor  the 
Apostles,  neither  the  Old  Testament,  nor  the  New  one,  nor 
any  positive  creed  is  humanitarian.  They  are  neither  inspired 
with,  nor  heartily  advocating  the  principles  of  “perfect  ethics” 
and  broad  humanity.  And  such  parties2  base  upon  this  “their 
right,  yea,  their  duty,”  to  secede  from  the  established  religions. 
They  pretend  that  any  and  all  positive  religious  systems  are  per¬ 
meated  with  selfishness  and  bigotry;  that  all  of  them  teach  love 
for  their  own  adherents,  hate,  prejudice  and  persecution  for  all 
others,  sectarians  or  independents.  True  humanity,  universal 
benevolence — they  say — are  taught  only  by  non-sectarians,  by 
Voltaire,  by  Swedenborg,  by  Auguste  Comte,  by  Heckel.  Only 
free-thinkers,  non-sectarians,  are  broadly  humanitarian.  There¬ 
fore,  as  long  as  any  positive  religion  will  continue,  the  true 
“Kingdom  of  Heaven,”  with  peace  and  good  will  to  all  men, 
will  not  dawn  upon  earth.  Por  that,  a  brand-new  doctrine  must 
be  inaugurated;  a  doctrine  that  emphatically  declines  any  and 
all  religious  connections ;  that  stands  and  insists  alone  upon 
ethics  and  nothing  else.  J ust  these  our  own  times  are  the  boldest 
in  such  pretentious  assumptions.  They  teem  with  revelations 
that  are  neither  religious  nor  scientific ;  revelations  made  by 
prophets  claiming  to  speak,  not  in  the  name  of  God,  hut  of  late 
discoveries.  The  credo  of  Mohammed  reads :  “There  is  hut  one 
God,  and  I  am  his  prophet” — our  latter-day’s  prophets  shout, 
louder  than  the  founder  of  Islam :  There  is  no  God ;  still  we  are 

'Professor  Friedrich  Delitzsch’s  “Babel  and  Bible,”  1902,  Leipzig;  intro¬ 
duction. 

2Felix  Adler’s  lectures:  “Right  of  Secession  in  Religion,”  1903,  New 
York. 


14 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


His  prophets!  Within  the  dawn  of  this  new  century  has  been 
discovered  in  the  Orient  a  Stela  with  a  cuneiform  text,  contain¬ 
ing  an  interesting  Code  of  laws  purporting  to  derive  from 
Hammurabi,  King  of  Babylon  in  about  2250  B.  C.,  a  Canaanit- 
ish  Conqueror  and  founder  of  a  dynasty  of  Western  Asia.  From 
this  Code  of  Hammurabi,  it  is  stoutly  and  boldly  claimed,  the 
best  part  of  our  religion  is  derived,  nay  borrowed,  copied,  pla¬ 
giarized  ;  the  Mosaic  Code,  its  Institutions,  yea,  its  monothe¬ 
ism,  the  Decalogue,  the  worship,  the  Sabbath,  etc.,  of  the  Penta¬ 
teuch  and  the  Bible,  hail  from  there.  Prof.  Fridr.  Delitzsch 
(“Babel  and  Bible,”  1902,  Leipzig)  states  that:  “Mankind 
needs  a  form  to  teach  the  God-idea ;  this  form  has  been  hitherto 
the  Old  Testament.  This  will  change  considerably  as  the  result 
of  researches,  inscriptions  and  excavations.”  This  I  shall  prove 
is  absolutely  incorrect.  The  excavations  by  no  means  bear  out 
out  such  a  claim.  It  is  the  boldest  piece  of  Anti-Semitism 
brought  forward  for  a  long  time.  In  this  treatise  the  reader  will 
find  a  careful  and  exact  verbatim  epitome  of  the  Hammurabi 
Code,  whereby  he  will  judge  that  the  claim  on  the  Pentateuch 
to  yield  its  place  to  Babylon,  that  its  best  contents  are  borrowed 
and  copied  from  the  cuneiform  Stela,  is  wholly  unwarranted 
and  monstrously  exaggerated,  a  molehill  turned  into  a  moun¬ 
tain  ;  that  all  we  may  find  there  is  a  shrewd  Canaanitish  legisla¬ 
tor,  enacting  laws  for  Canaanitish-Babylonian,  heterogenous  pop¬ 
ulations,  swayed  by  a  hundred  gods,  goddesses,  daemons,  witch¬ 
craft,  priestcraft,  Kingcraft,  classes  and  masses ;  despotism  and 
bitter  national  jealousies — laAvs  aiming  at  perpetuating  the 
grasp  of  the  dominant  party  over  the  subjugated  one.  The 
reader  will  find  that  the  Biblical  God-belief  and  monotheism, 
that  the  man  and  world,  right  and  duty-ideas,  the  Decalogue, 
with  its  Sabbath-rest  and  sanctification,  its  Code  of  justice  tem¬ 
pered  with  sympathy,  its  liberty,  equality  and  democracy,  its 
principles  of  solidarity  and  reciprocity,  its  benevolence  and 
charity  laws,  its  Release  and  Jubilee  Cycles,  with  the  inalien¬ 
able  family-acre,  etc.,  aiming  at  averting  pauperism,  plutocracy 
and  despotism,  that  the  entire  Mosaic  Code,  indeed,  is  original, 
genuine  and  independently  enacted  upon  new  principles  evolved 


THE  PENTATEUCH  ;  ITS  BENEVOLENCE  AND  CHARITY. 


15 


in  Judea,  often  diametrically  opposed  to  the  Babylonian  Code. 
Whilst  the  few  and  rare  similarities  are  fully  explained  by  the 
proximity  of  time,  territory  and  populations. 

The  Pentateuch  ;  its  Benevolence  and  Charity. 

I  do  not  pretend  that  these  pages  and  their  studies  will  suc¬ 
ceed  in  showing  and  pointing  out  when  the  dreamed-of  “king¬ 
dom  of  heaven”  will  dawn  upon  our  human  horizon.  But  I  shall 
attempt  to  show  here  to  every  unbiased  person  that  the  above 
charges  against  all  positive  religions  and  against  Mosaisin  in 
particular,  are  entirely  and  thoroughly  unwarranted.  Indeed, 
as  the  world-space  is  filled  with  air  and  light,  and  as  the  ocean 
is  replete  with  water  and  life,  even  so  are  the  laws  of  the  Penta¬ 
teuch  permeated  by  the  principles  of  genuine  love  and  true  hu¬ 
manitarian  benevolence ;  to  such  an  extent  that  even  its  general 
rules  and  laws  of  right  and  justice  are  borne  up  on  the  ethereal 
wings  of  humanity  and  solidarity  to  and  for  all ;  all  nationali¬ 
ties,  races,  speeches,  sects  and  countries ;  to  non-believers  and 
foreigners ;  yea,  even  to  the  brute.  Elsewhere  we  have  attempted 
to  vindicate  this  sympathetic  trait  also  to  other  great  historical 
teachers  of  religion,  showing  that  Great  lawgivers  are  deeply 
penetrated  with  the  ardent  and  sincere  desire  to  serve  their  fel¬ 
low-men.  As  to  Moses  we  shall  prove  here  that  in  framing  his 
national,  particular,  Judaic  laws,  he  aimed  at  universal  im¬ 
provement  and  happiness,  and  that  the  spirit  of  sectarianism, 
bigotry  and  tribal  selfishness  never  emanated  from  his  great 
and  warm  heart.  Leading  ethical  teachers  are  universal  and 
humanitarian.  And  when  we  find  peculiar  sectarian  enactments 
savoring  apparently  of  popular  invidiousness  and  discrimina¬ 
tion,  such  do  not  originally  belong  to  the  lawgiver  proper,  but  to 
his  successors  and  to  the  altered  environments  and  imperious, 
new  national  interests  and  emergencies.  Such  crept  in  later,  as 
an  afterthought,  as  the  necessary  alloy  added  by  the  cunning 
smith  in  order  to  harden  his  gold.  Such  egoism  intended  to 
render  their  stiff  system  malleable  and  durable  for  the  use  of 
actual  human  society,  varying  with  each  historic  phase. 


16 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


Geeat  Teachees. 

Indeed,  when  we  read  about  Moses  giving  up  his  rank  as  a 
grandee  at  Pharaoh’s  court  and  becoming  a  Bedawin  Shepherd ; 
when  40  years  later  we  see  him  leaving  his  family,  his  home,  his 
flocks  and  his  mounts  for  his  new,  hazardous  scheme  of  libera¬ 
tion,  boldly  devoting  himself  to  the  rescue  of  an  enslaved  race 
that  had  but  a  scant  claim  upon  his  self-sacrificing  tenderness ; 
when  we  read  of  Buddha,  who  renounced  the  voluptuous  and 
easy  rank  and  position  of  an  Indian  dynast,  braved  the  obloquy 
of  the  mob,  the  taunts  and  curses  of  the  Brahmans  and  the 
frowns  of  his  peers,  with  all  the  hardships  of  exile,  poverty,  mis¬ 
construction,  and  consecrated  his  life  to  the  emancipation  of  the 
pariah  races  of  India;  when  we  read  of  Elias,  Isaiah  and  of 
Jeremiah,  or  later  of  the  Gallilean  preachers,  confronting  king 
and  noble,  priest,  people  and  soldier,  boldly  unmasking  the 
reigning  powers  and  throwing  their  vices  into  their  bared  faces, 
at  the  imminent  risk  of  torture  and  death — who  would  have 
the  boldness  to  deny  to  them  the  very  substance  of  sympathy 
and  altruism,  as  being  the  primary  source  and  motive-power  of 
their  self-sacrificing  efforts !  So  a  Midrashic  tale  quaintly  nar¬ 
rates  that  Moses,  tending  his  flocks  near  Sinai  and  perceiving  a 
little  lamb  left  far  behind,  exposed  to  the  rays  of  an  Arabic  sun, 
went  in  quest  of  it  and  brought  it  in  his  arms  back  to  its  bleating 
mother.  The  heavenly  Father,  seeing  it,  said:  “Thou,  Moses, 
hast  shown  so  much  sympathy  with  a  poor  lamb,  thou  wilt  be  the 
proper  shepherd  for  my  flock,  Israel,  the  oppressed  of  Pharoah.” 
This  legend  gives  the  clue  to  the  character  of  nearly  all  the  his¬ 
toric  Prophets  and  Lawgivers.  Their  first  characteristic  is 
boundless  love,  sympathy  with  human  misery,  the  vast  and  ar¬ 
dent  desire  of  benefiting  the  masses,  those  very  masses  by 
whom  they  usually  were  and  are  persecuted  and  stoned,  they 
calmly  praying:  “Pardon  them,  Father,  they  know  not  what 
they  are  doing.”  To  refuse  to  these  providential  men  the  es¬ 
sence  of  love  and  sympathy  is  the  height  of  prejudice  and  fri¬ 
volity.  Let  us  now  look  at  the  benevolent  spirit  of  the  Mosaic 
legislation,  at  its  principles  of  humanity  and  charity. 


CHARACTERISTICS  OF  MOSAIC  BENEVOLENCE. 


17 


Characteristics  of  Mosaic  Benevolence. 

Closely  examining  and  sifting  the  different  and  numerous 
scattered  chapters  and  passages  of  the  Pentateuch  on  legislation, 
and  especially  those  often  misunderstood,  of  II  M.,  21-24,  we 
shall  gradually  realize  the  leading  ideas  and  objects  of  the  Law¬ 
giver  on  the  sympathetic  principles  in  human  nature.  There  we 
find  his  enactments  bearing  upon  men’s  relations  towards  each 
other;  man,  wife,  child  and  kindred;  the  poor,  the  Levite, 
the  sick,  the  distressed,  the  unfortunate,  the  forlorn  (non- Jew¬ 
ish)  stranger,  the  widow,  the  orphan,  the  guilty,  even  the  dumb 
brute;  in  one  word,  towards  our  fellow-men  and  fellow-beings 
who  are  in  need  of  our  pity,  our  sympathy  and  our  assistance  in 
one  way  or  another. 

These  Biblical  views  on  altruism,  humanity  and  charity 
distinguish  themselves  greatly  from  other  legislations  on  the 
same  subjects  in  the  following  respects,  viz: 

I.  They  are  all  realistic,  possible,  enacted  for  man,  man  as  he 
is,  not  as  he  might  he,  not  for  angels  ever  overflowing  with  and 
moved  by  sympathy,  as  assumed  sometimes  by  Buddhistic,  Chris¬ 
tian  and  Socialistic  Teachers,  but  for  earthly  beings  in  whom 
egoism  is  the  mainspring  of  action.  Here  the  Mosaic  legislator, 
as  also  political  economy  shows,  makes  an  effort  to  prove  to 
man  that  his  own  interests  require  him  to  he  just  and  equitable, 
and  this  kindness  is,  furthermore,  measured  by  the  cubit  of  his 
own  size,  not  by  that  of  some  supernatural  being.  He  asks  of 
him  to  give  to  the  poor  a  fraction  of  his  crops,  not  the  whole; 
to  pardon  him  who  wronged  him,  not  to  love  him,  which  is  im¬ 
possible,  wrong  never  being  the  cause  and  seed  of  love;  not  to 
bear  any  secret  grudge,  but  to  openly  expostulate  and  insist  upon 
reparation ;  to  love  his  neighbor  and  fellow-citizen,  not  his  en¬ 
emy;  to  bring  the  offender  to  justice,  not  to  offer  him  his  cheek 
to  smite,  or  his  cloak  to  take  when  he  had  stolen  his  coat.  Ho ! 
the  thief  must  give  restitution  and  a  fine  besides,  hut  his  life  is 
to  be  spared.  War  is  a  sad  fact  of  history  and  is  even  legiti¬ 
mate  in  defense.  The  vanquished  enemy  and  soldier  shall  pay 
tribute,  hut  must  be  spared.  The  slave  is  to  serve,  but  when 


18 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


abused  he  shall  go  out  free ;  when  he  is  admitted  into  the  He¬ 
braic  nationality  he  becomes  a  free  citizen.  These  laws  are  sup¬ 
plemented  by  those  in  V  M.,  20-25.  The  captive  woman  is  a 
slave,  not  a  harlot;  if  loved,  she  may  become  the  wife  of  the 
master ;  to  abuse  her  is  unlawful ;  her  feelings  are  to  be  respected 
and  her  children  are  legitimate,  and  the  very  marriage  renders 
her  free.  When  disliked,  she  can  be  sent  home,  never  sold  away 
as  a  slave.  It  will  happen  that  a  man  will  loathe  his  captive- 
wife;  the  Agadists  even  predict  it  as  probable;  but  her  legal, 
wifely  status  remains  unaffected,  for  feelings  of  affection  can¬ 
not  be  commanded,  but  positive  rights  can.  A  father  may 
naturally  prefer  the  son  of  the  loved  wife  to  the  son  of  the 
hated  woman,  but  he  shall  not  alter  the  positive  right  of  primo¬ 
geniture,  he  cannot  change  the  right  of  succession.  This  the 
lawgiver  positively  forbids ;  and  unfair  preference  he  expressly 
and  impliedly  deprecates  (in  the  story  of  Joseph’s  adventures). 
If  a  half-witted  son  be  criminal,  then  the  judge,  not  the  angry 
parent,  shall  punish  him.  The  condemned  criminal  shall  expi¬ 
ate  his  crime,  but  after  expiation  he  shall  be  decently  buried ;  he 
is  and  remains  a  brother  and  fellow-man.  These  and  many  hun¬ 
dreds  of  similar  verses  of  the  Pentateuch,  as  we  shall  later  dis¬ 
cuss,  will  abundantly  prove  the  Mosaic  laws  to  be  not  merely 
just,  but  sympathetic  and  humanitarian  as  well,  as  realistic  and 
possible,  ordained  to  improve  men,  not  for  Utopian  purposes. 

The  Biblical  principles  of  Charity  and  Humanity  are  fur¬ 
thermore  : 

II.  Positive  Laws :  They  are  commanded,  they  confer  a  duty 
and  a  right.  They  are  not  simply  an  ideal  recommendation  or 
a  moral  duty,  a  homiletic  generality,  a  banality,  a  pium  desid¬ 
eratum,  accepted  or  refused  at  will;  but  a  peremptory  bidding 
of  God,  the  Supreme  authority  and  king  of  the  State.  So  we 
read:  “When  thou  lendest  money,  or  sellest  goods,  thou  shalt 
take  no  interest  or  profit  upon  them.  Thou  shalt  not  overreach 
the  (non-Israelite)  stranger,  for  strangers  ye  were  in  Egypt. 
Ye  shall  not  afflict  the  widow  or  the  orphan,  for  I,  God,  shall 
listen  to  their  cry  and  avenge  their  wrongs  upon  the  wrongdoers 
and  make  their  own  wives  widows,  and  their  children  orphans. 


CHARACTERISTICS  OF  MOSAIC  BENEVOLENCE. 


19 


When  thou  pawnest  thy  neighbor’s  garment,  return  it  to  him 
even  before  sunset,  for  he  may  cry  to  God,  who  will  listen  to 
him.  Be  no  tale-bearer,  nor  participant  in  a  ‘ring,’  or  clique, 
or  side  with  the  mob  for  bad ;  nor  run  headlong  after  the  major¬ 
ity.  Have  pity  upon  thy  enemy’s  beast  or  other  property.  Do 
not  alter  his  right  in  litigation.  Every  seventh  year  let  the  pro¬ 
duce  of  thy  field  go  to  thy  poor,  thy  stranger,  and  thy  beast,  for 
their  sustenance.  Every  seventh  day  in  the  week  allow  as  a 
Rest-day  to  thy  beast  of  burden,  thy  servant  and  thy  stranger, 
that  they  may  recuperate  from  their  toils.”  All  these  beautiful 
verses  on  humanity  and  charity  are  enacted  in  one  single  chap¬ 
ter,  the  one  just  following  the  21st  chapter  of  Exodus,  that  with 
the  much  misunderstood  and  misconstrued  verses  on  lex  Tali- 
onis:  “Eye  for  eye  and  tooth  for  tooth.”  The  law  declares  the 
corners  of  the  field-harvest,  the  forgotten  sheaves,  the  gleanings 
and  the  top  of  the  fruit-trees,  free  to  the  poor ;  two  of  each  hun¬ 
dred  of  the  produce  go  to  the  sanctuary  and  its  servants ;  ten  of 
each  hundred  to  the  Levites,  the  teachers,  the  judges,  magis¬ 
trates  and  police  of  the  State ;  and,  further  ten  of  each  hundred 
go  to  the  poor.  And  all  that  is  not  an  ideal,  not  preached  as 
almsgiving  and  charity,  but  it  is  a  postive  law,  a  divine  ordi¬ 
nance,  insisted  upon  and  levied  by  the  combined  authority  of 
God  and  the  State,  just  as  the  Commandment  of  “Thou  shalt 
not  steal,  or  kill,  or  testify  falsely.”  It  is  an  express  condition 
of  the  tenure  of  the  soil.  It  is  communism,  but  the  terms  on 
which  God,  the  feudal  Lord,  conferred  his  land  on  the  citizens. 

III.  The  next  characteristic  feature  of  the  Mosaic  Humanity 
and  Charity  Laws,  and  the  very  ground  of  their  realism  and 
positivism,  is :  Solidarity.  The  Biblical  people,  society  and 
State  are  based  upon  the  principle  of  mutual  responsibility, 
“One  for  all  and  all  for  one each  has  an  interest  in  and  is  in 
some  way  responsible  for,  the  welfare  of  his  neighbors ;  no  one 
can  be  really  happy  by  and  for  himself ;  solitary  happiness  is 
brutish,  not  humane ;  man  is  a  social  being ;  he  works  for  and 
enjoys  by  and  with  his  fellows ;  his  motive  to  effort  is  self,  but 
it  redounds  to  the  good  of  all ;  he  may  work  and  toil  by  himself, 


20 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


he  cannot  humanely  enjoy  alone.  “Thou  shalt  rejoice  on  thy 
festivals,”  says  the  Lawgiver ;  “thyself  and  thy  family,  thy  poor, 
etc.”  Man  is  a  gregarious,  sociable  being,  happy  only  with  and 
by  his  fellows ;  to  enjoy  alone,  as  the  miser  does  his  money,  as 
Harpagon  of  fiction  enjoys  his  table,  his  diamonds  and  his  rich, 
warm  mansion,  looking  down  from  his  gorgeous  bay-window 
upon  the  hungry  poor  wading  kneedeep  in  the  cold  mire  out¬ 
doors — that  is  abominated  by  the  God  of  the  Bible.  That  Mosaic 
solidarity  and  that  charity  were  soon,  after  the  redaction  of  the 
Canon,  elaborated  and  worked  out  by  the  rabbinical  Teachers 
into  separate  tracts  (see  further  on  that),  basing  on  a  positive, 
leading,  paramount  principle,  viz :  “All  the  Israelites  are  re¬ 
sponsible  for  one  another”  (Abboth).  And  that  becomes  the 
foremost  social  feature  and  the  grandest  maxim  of  the  Judaic 
society.1 

England’s  Pook-Laws,  Huxley  and  the  Bible. 

Let  us  quote  the  English  Poor-Laws  in  illustration  of  our 
theme.  Ever  is  the  tendency  of  poor-laws  towards  perpetuating 
misery,  pauperism,  a  pariah  class.  As  England  is  the  oldest  of 
modern  states,  granting  liberty  and  equality,  at  least  before  the 
law,  to  all  its  citizens,  even  so  it  is  the  oldest  modern  community 
with  laws  providing  for  the  destitute.  Already  in  the  time  of 
Queen  Elizabeth,  in  1563,  the  British  Statutes  made  provision 
for  the  poor,  apparently,  not  really  taking  their  inspiration  from 
the  sacred  chapters  we  are  discussing.  The  State,  the  shires,  the 
towns,  paid  taxes  towards  that.  Corporations  and  private  Socie¬ 
ties  contributed  to  that.  Dwelling  houses,  homes  for  the  aged, 
hospitals  for  the  sick,  asylums  for  the  minors,  workhouses  and 
poor-colonies  were  established.  Fuel,  medicine,  etc.,  were  pro¬ 
vided  for  the  needy  and  the  sick.  And  since  that  time  such 
taxes  and  institutions  increased  greatly.  Withal  is  English  pau¬ 
perism  apparently  among  the  most  appalling  in  Christendom! 
Because  and  for  the  reason  that  almsgiving  is  no  panacea  or  as¬ 
sistance.  It  does  more  harm  than  good.  It  feeds  and  nurtures 
pauperism  rather  than  the  poor. 

’Abboth.  ma  nr  D’any  broty'  ba 


ENGLAND  S  POOR-LAWS,  HUXLEY  AND  THE  BIBLE. 


21 


Joseph  Gamier  (Paris,  1858,  “Elements  de  Finances,  page 
455)  writes  on  our  topic:  “This  system  of  legal  charity  dates 
back  previous  to  the  (Protestant)  Reform  of  the  16th  Century. 
Protestantism,  too,  admitted  charity  as  a  social  duty,  by  the 
famous  act  of  the  43rd  year  of  the  reign  of  Elizabeth,  analyzed 
by  Mai  thus.  Prevost  makes  such  a  statute  reach  up  to  1563. 
But  already  in  the  14th  century,  under  Edward  III,  a  statute 
made  such  provision  for  working  men.  Apparently  the  ancient 
laws  contained  such  prescriptions,  and  then,  with  the  suppression 
of  the  convents  after  the  Reformation,  many  mendicants  and 
needy  ones  remained  at  the  charge  of  society.  That  act  put 
the  support  of  the  poor  on  the  shoulders  of  the  vestry,  under  the 
supervision  of  overseers  appointed  by  the  notables.  From  that 
moment  charity  became  no  longer  a  voluntary  contribution,  a 
religious  duty,  but  a  legal  obligation.  They  gave  no  charity,  but 
paid  a  tax.  With  that  impost,  the  overseers  distributed  assist¬ 
ance  at  home  to  the  indigents  unable  to  work ;  to  healthy  poor 
they  gave  work  in  workshops,  kept  up  by  the  parish,  since  called 
workhouses. 

An  assessment  ( cadastre )  on  the  lands,  enacted  at  the  same 
time  as  the  old  laws,  contained  many  anomalies  and  difficulties 
concerning  the  repartition  of  this  poor-tax.  Many  estates  paid 
none,  not  having  been  appropriated  at  the  time  of  the  cadastre. 
Others  paid  in  diverse  proportions  to  their  income  or  their  culti¬ 
vation. 

“Innumerable  discussions  arose  between  the  poor  and  the  par¬ 
ishes,  and  among  the  parishes  themselves,  concerning  the  domi¬ 
cile,  to  such  a  degree  that  the  lawyers  and  officers  of  justice, 
absorbed  an  important  part  of  the  tax.  Such  a  law-suit,  about  a 
single  pauper,  often  cost  more  than  the  support  of  all  the  other 
poor  together.  One  reads  in  the  Quarterly  Review  of  the  Tri- 
Mestrial  Assizes  that  the  court  had  dealt  with  4,700  appeals  in 
cases  of  indigents  in  a  single  year.  Fifty  families  of  the  city 
had  to  sell  their  furniture  in  order  to  pay  their  poor-taxes.  To 
enumerate  the  cruelties,  the  scandals,  and  the  malpractices  of 
different  sorts  would  take  too  much  space.  In  1833  an  inquiry 


22 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


was  made  which  has  thrown  much  light  on  the  question  of  legal 
charity,  which  all  more  than  confirmed  the  assertions  of  Malthus 
(concerning  the  inadvisability  of  enforced  charity).  It  was 
proven  that  the  poor  hastened  to  marry  in  order  to  receive  a 
double  stipend.  Once  marired,  or  even  before,  they  zealously  got 
children  so  as  to  obtain  still  higher  pay.  There  were  women 
with  children  of  different  fathers.  Such  legal  succor  brought  on 
demoralization,  loosened  the  family  ties,  increased  mendicity 
and  mendacity,  with  an  excess  of  doubtful  population,  lowered 
wages  and  induced  many  other  economic  inconveniences.  The 
later  suppression  of  such  abuses  brought  an  increase  of  wages. 

“The  English  poor-law  amendment  act  of  1834  abolished  its 
fundamental  principle  of  the  primitive  law.  Society  still  re¬ 
gards  it  as  a  duty  to  assist  extreme  misery,  but  not  uncondition¬ 
ally.  Bread  and  clothes  are  furnished,  but  only  in  the  work- 
house.  There  are  no  outdoor  distributions  in  money  or  other¬ 
wise  to  supplement  insufficient  salary,  no  alms  and  no  charity. 
Society  opens  only  an  asylum,  without  liberty  to  unfortunates  in¬ 
capable  of  working,  to  children,  seniles  and  invalids.  It  offers 
only  a  modest  support  in  exchange  for  serious  work  to  indigents, 
hale  in  body  and  mind.  Such  it  is  in  principle.  Practically,  the 
new  pauper  administration  proceeds  with  praiseworthy  leniency. 

“The  ancient  parish  administration  has  made  room  for  a  sys¬ 
tem  of  parish  union  composed  of  many  neighboring  parishes,  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  size  of  their  populations.  A  board  of  guardians 
is  elected  by  the  contributors  as  administrators  of  the  pauper  af¬ 
fairs.  Above  this  is  the  central  commission  holding  the  regis¬ 
ters.  Since  1837  most  of  the  parishes  are  united.  Each  union 
has  a  workhouse.  There  are  600  such  workhouses  in  Great  Brit¬ 
ain.  The  old  workhouses  revealed  frightful  abuses  and  all  possi¬ 
ble  human  miseries.  Hot  seldom  the  same  room  contained  chil¬ 
dren,  paralytics,  prostitutes.  The  law  of  1834  improved  the 
condition  of  infants  and  of  old  people.  A  healthy  poor  man  has 
the  workhouse  as  his  resource.  The  poor  husband,  wife  and  chil¬ 
dren  are  separated  in  their  working  hours,  hut  are  united  at  table 
and  half  of  Sundays.  Persons  who  have  visited  these  houses  of 
refuge  since  1834  have  found  there  the  children  happy  and 


England’s  poor-laws,  huxley  and  the  bible. 


23 


lively,  receiving  sufficient  education  to  become  errand-boys,  farm¬ 
hands,  small  traders.  The  women  take  up  washing,  sewing  and 
housework;  the  men  devote  themselves  to  the  crafts  and  trades. 

“The  poor-tax  amounted  to  four  millions  of  Sterling  in  the 
beginning  of  this  century.  It  rose  considerably  during  the  wars 
against  the  French  Empire,  even  to  6 *4  millions.  It  increased 
with  the  bad  crops  in  1816-17  to  nearly  eight  millions,  fluctuat¬ 
ing  since  between  these  extremes  of  four  to  eight  millions,  never 
rising  higher.  But  since  the  pauper-law-reform  it  is  better  dis¬ 
tributed  and  better  used  in  the  interest  of  both  the  poor  and  the 
public  morality.” 

We  gave  here  a  succinct  outline  of  the  English  charity  and 
poor-laws.  Ho  doubt,  they  were  the  religious  outcome  of  the 
imperfectly  understood  Biblical  charity.  Unfortunately,  its  so¬ 
cial  edifice,  its  solidarity,  equality,  human  freedom  and  brother¬ 
hood  clashed  too  much  with  the  Gothic  Middle-Age  policy  and 
feudalism.  The  Biblical  benevolence-feelings  and  ideas,  the 
founders  of  Christianity  disseminated  all  over  the  world.  But 
politics  wrecked  them.  The  Nazarene  founder  Himself  was  a 
working  man,  a  poor  man,  who  knew  not  in  the  morn  where  to 
rest  his  head  in  the  eve.  ITe  was  brimful  with  sympathy,  pity 
and  solicitude  for  the  fourth  estate,  for  suffering  humanity. 
But  his  kind  heart  rose  above  his  head.  He  was  no  political 
economist.  He  did  not  calculate  as  a  statesman,  but  as  a  philan¬ 
thropist.  So  did  Plato,  and  even  Aristotle.  They  did  not  read 
Adam  Smith,  Ricardo,  and  especially  the  cold  reasoners,  Mal- 
thus  and  Gamier.  “As  the  lilies  do  not  spin  and  the  birds  do  not 
sow,”  he  reasoned,  so  God  will  house,  clothe  and  feed  the  poor, 
and  even  so  should  men  do.  Hence  Christianity  disseminated 
with  its  doctrine,  its  monasteries,  its  hospitals,  almshouses  and 
soup  kitchens.  But  experience  has  shown  that  these  are  inade¬ 
quate,  yea,  that  they  are  nurturing  and  increasing  pauperism. 
And  so  it  was  in  England  also.  Her  statutes  made  systematic 
provision  for  the  poor.  Still  there  is  the  classic  country  of  plu¬ 
tocracy  and  pauperism  which  the  Bible  strove,  with  might  and 
main,  to  avoid  as  the  social  Scylla  and  Charybdis. 


24 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


Some  twenty-five  years  ago,  at  a  public  meeting  in  behalf  of 
tbe  poor,  Lord  Salisbury  feelingly  called  attention  to  tbe 
wretched  condition  of  the  London  proletarians,  their  lawless¬ 
ness,  uncleanness,  bad  health  and  worse  morals.  He  advised 
some  State-aid,  especially  to  build  dwellings  for  the  poor.  But 
the  late  Professor  Huxley,  scouting  all  kinds  of  palliative  expe¬ 
diency  and  superficial  philanthropy,  truly  and  concretely 
showed  the  true  and  hidden  cause  of  that  wrechedness,  as  well 
also  as  the  final  tendency  of  poor-laws  and  poor-rates.  The 
cause  of  that  poverty,  misery  and  vice,  he  said,  is  their  social 
degradation,  the  tremendous,  real  civil  inequality  of  the  masses 
in,  seemingly,  free  England.  The  poor,  though  free  and  equal 
before  the  law,  are  socially,  economically  and  really,  pariahs. 
They  are  thus  doomed  to  pauperism  and  wretchedness,  and  their 
economic  distress  is  the  cause  of  their  physical,  mental  and 
moral  degradation  and  ruin.  The  only  solution  for  their  prob¬ 
lem,  he  continued  with  uncommon  common  sense,  is  Emigration, 
which  alone  will  bring  them  betterment,  to  come  with  real  social 
equality.  A  home  with  poor-rates,  fuel,  medicine  and  the  char¬ 
ity-box,  makes  them  beggars,  outcasts  and  lepers,  never  citizens. 
Poor-laws  may  keep  the  poor  from  starvation,  but  perpetuates 
them  also  in  pauperism  and  wretchedness.  Poor  laws  are  not  in 
behalf  of  the  destitute,  but  of  destitution,  nurseries  of  vice. 
The  same  opinion  Huxley  held  up  soon  after  on  a  similar  occa¬ 
sion  against  Mr.  Goshen  (Hew  York  Tribune,  Dec.,  1883) — 
Here  is  the  clue  to  most  of  modern  charitable  institutions,  they 
are  nurseries  of  pauperism.  True  benevolence  is  more  than  beg¬ 
garly  and  clumsy  almsgiving,  more  than  to  physic  the  sick, 
house  the  homeless,  feed  the  hungry  and  clothe  the  naked,  day 
by  day  have  them  come  and  beg,  fawn  and  starve,  until  the  relief 
officer  condescends  to  pity  them.  The  Hebrew  prophets  knew  no 
alms,  but  benevolence.  Assist  thy  brother,  do  not  pauperize  and 
degrade  him.  Benevolence  is  to  prevent  disease  and  infection, 
destitution,  starvation  and  temptation,  by  just  and  equitable 
socio-economical  arrangements  ;  allowing  everyone  to  earn  a  live¬ 
lihood,  to  contract  habits  of  prudence,  of  health,  work,  sane, 
plain  living  and  cleanliness;  fostering  education  and  morality, 


England’s  poor-laws,  huxley  and  the  bible. 


25 


encouraging  manly  self-help,  opening  activities  and  industries  to 
the  poor  and  the  strangers,  offering  them  capital  on  small  or  no 
interest;  screening  them  from  sharp  speculators  and  monopo¬ 
lists  ;  utilizing  their  work  and  products ;  rescuing  them  from 
social  degradation,  sharp  patronage  and  aristocratic  ostracism; 
treating  them  with  justice  and  civility,  and  not  taking  advan¬ 
tage  of  their  lack  of  social  patronage  and  ready  means.  True 
benevolence  is,  as  in  our  chapter:  “Not  to  vex  and  oppress  the 
stranger,  not  to  overreach  the  widow  and  orphan,  not  to  crush 
the  debtor  with  usurious  methods,  etc. ;”  wretched  almsgiving  is 
not  prophetic  charity. 

Causes  of  Poverty. 

And  this  is  also  the  opinion  of  the  soundest  and  wisest  of  po¬ 
litical  economists,  such  as  Roscher,  Michel  Chevalier,  Adam 
Smith,  Ricardo,  Bastiat,  John  Stuart  Mill.  Socialism  and  com¬ 
munism,  the  systems  of  St.  Simon,  Owen,  Fourrier,  are  Utopian, 
a  fata  morgana  with  our  present  social  environments  and  ideas. 
They  will  not  help  the  poor,  but  they  will  upset  society  if  put 
abruptly  into  practice.  The  principle  of  property,  of  personal 
freedom  and  of  inclination  are  the  basis  of  our  civilization.  To 
upset  them  for  a  trial  of  any  of  the  socialistic  systems  would 
be  to  first  demolish  our  houses  and  then  build  castles  in  the 
air.  These  systems  may  contain  some  useful  material,  some 
stones  toward  a  future,  happy  society.  But  only  slow,  gradual, 
cautious  experience  can  show  us  which  elements  are  sound  and 
which  are  utopias  and  hallucinations.  First  to  upset  society 
and  then  try  such  vague  schemes  would  be  sheer  madness. 

The  present  social  problem,  misery,  pauperism,  has  many 
causes  not  to  be  removed  by  abolition  of  property  and  granting 
of  freedom.  The  major  causes  are: 

The  too  great  needs  and  pretentions  of  the  rich,  and  even  of 
the  middle  classes,  those  well-to-do.  There  is  no  doubt  that  the 
rich  and  aristocratic  minority  of  our  civilized  nations  waste  too 
much  on  their  dwelling,  eating,  drinking,  smoking,  gambling, 
dressing,  sporting,  amusements,  vices,  fashions  and  luxuries  of 
all  sorts.  Hence  the  double  misery!  For  this  bears  on  the  ne- 


26 


HUMANITY.  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


cessities  of  the  majority  of  the  people,  because  when  the  minor¬ 
ity  wastes,  the  majority  starves.  The  wastefulness  of  the  few 
is  the  cause  of  the  penury  of  the  many.  So  justly  remarked 
Jean  Jacques  Rousseau:  “Wherever  I  see  a  palace,  I  discover 
behind  a  hundred  wretched  huts.”  The  effect  of  the  reigning 
extravagance  is  not  only  onerous  and  baleful  for  the  poor  masses, 
but  no  less,  if  not  even  more  so,  for  the  luxurious  classes.  Dan¬ 
gerous  diseases  of  body  and  of  mind,  effeminacy,  hard-hearted¬ 
ness,  laziness,  infatuation  and  hereditary  vapidness,  are  directly 
derived  from  over-weaning  wealth  and  ease.  The  great  aristo¬ 
cratic  families  deteriorate  and  die  out  quickly,  and  their  place 
is  occupied  by  the  sober,  plain-living,  painstaking  class  of  the 
hard  workers.  Malthus  and  others  attribute  economic  misery  in 
first  instance  to  too  large  families.  Too  large  families  can  be¬ 
come  a  cause  of  poverty,  but  it  is  not  the  main  cause.  With 
economy,  careful  thrift  and  plain  living,  one  will  rear  more  nu¬ 
merous,  healthy  and  contented  offspring  than  a  wasteful,  im¬ 
provident  man  of  the  Malthus  description.  ISTo  doubt,  the  chil¬ 
dren  of  the  rich  get  the  best  chances,  places,  official  patronage 
and  practical  success.  Theirs  is  the  smooth  way,  and  at  first 
they  get  the  better  in  the  battle  for  existence.  They  obtain  all 
the  big  loaves — but  very  rarely  genius,  superior  merit  or  an  hon¬ 
orable,  historical  name.  These  belong  mostly  to  another  spe¬ 
cies  of  aristocracy,  that  of  the  toilers,  of  the  sober  minds,  and 
mostly  too  of  the  humbler,  struggling  social  strata.  Should  so¬ 
ciety  ever  attain  at  such  a  high  degree  of  civilization  as  to  cur¬ 
tail  its  economical  living  expenses,  there  will  be  no  plaint  of 
over-population.  A  large  family  will  be  accounted  a  blessing, 
provided  one  remembers  the  axiom  of  the  ancients:  “First  learn 
a  trade,  then  build  a  house,  last  take  a  wife.” 

The  next  cause  of  misery  is  the  thoughtlessness,  levity  and  fri¬ 
volity  of  some,  assuming  duties  and  responsibilities  they  cannot 
fulfill.  Of  others  the  causes  of  misfortune  are  vices  of  various 
kinds;  of  many  it  is  unforeseen,  undeserved  misfortune;  and 
of  most  it  is  lack  of  professional  skill  and  mean  laziness  which 
makes  them  fail  in  the  battle  for  existence. 


CAUSES  OF  POVERTY. 


27 


Next  to  the  just-quoted  rabbinical  saying  is  this  wise  adjunct: 
“Educating  one’s  son  without  a  profession  is  tantamount  to 
rearing  him  for  robbery” — a  profound  saying  indeed.  No  pro¬ 
fessional  training,  bodily  or  mental  or  moral  deficiencies  and 
vices,  no  laziness,  ibprudence,  recklessness,  no  diligent  prepara¬ 
tions  to  meet  emergencies,  and  finally  accidental,  undeserved 
misfortunes,  are  potent  causes  of  economic  distress  and  misery, 
which  in  most  cases  lead  to  chronic  pauperism  and  furnish  the 
inmates  for  our  poorhouses,  hospitals,  asylums,  workhouses,  pris¬ 
ons  and  penal  colonies.  Society  owes  education  and  profes¬ 
sional  training  to  every  one  of  its  members.  The  family  owes 
them  the  best  example  of  morality,  sobriety,  work,  diligence, 
prudence,  thrift.  When  state  and  family  honestly  perform 
these,  their  several  duties,  and  both  allow  justice  and  free  com¬ 
petition  to  their  units,  it  will  seldom  happen  that  these  will  not 
profit  by  their  example,  and  pauperism  will  not  be  recruited 
from  the  ranks  of  the  well  reared  and  prepared  citizens. 

And  now  we  arrive  at  the  honest,  though  exaggerated,  econom¬ 
ical  warning  of  Malthus :  Excess  of  population,  teaching  first  to 
provide  for  food,  and  then  to  aspire  to  the  blessing  of  a  large 
family — wise  enough  if  formulated  in  this  way.  No  doubt,  too 
early  and  imprudent  marriages,  followed  by  too  large  families, 
create  pauperism  among  the  working  classes.  A  prolific  family 
is  a  blessing  on  condition  of  heeding  that  alluded-to  maxim,  “that 
a  provident  man  begins  with  learning  a  trade,  next  he  builds  a 
house,  and  finally  he  marries  and  gets  children ;  a  fool  acts  in 
the  contrary  way.”  The  Talmud  places  the  rearing  of  children 
in  the  front  rank  of  biblical  commandments,  but  on  the  express 
condition  of  first  establishing  a  safe  livelihood  and  building  a 
house;  otherwise  it  is  declared  a  folly;  and  political  economy 
sets  it  down  as  a  crime,  as  productive  of  pauperism,  overpopula¬ 
tion,  misery  and  sickness.  The  Bible  teaches  the  same  (I  M., 
1-26):  “God  blessed  the  first  pair,  saying:  Multiply  and  in¬ 
crease,  fill  the  earth,  subdue  it,  and  rule  over  all,”  viz,  work, 
create  and  enjoy. 

Further  causes  of  the  social  problem  are  of  a  more  complex 
nature:  The  social  and  political  injustices,  the  preferences  and 


28 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


discriminations,  prejudices  and  arrogance,  ignorance  and  over¬ 
bearing  of  classes  and  masses.  Then  come  the  social  privileges, 
the  lack  of  true,  free  competition,  and  the  overpowering  abun¬ 
dance  of  artificial  competition,  privilege,  protection,  monopo¬ 
lism,  the  discriminations  between  man  and  man,  not  only  in 
Morocco  and  Russia,  but  even  in  free  America.  The  lucky  ones 
are  hedged  in  and  protected  by  artificial  barriers,  and  the  out¬ 
siders,  the  weaker  ones,  are  debarred  from  competing.  Society 
allows  the  former  a  pair  of  wings;  it  burdens  the  latter  with 
heavy  chains  in  life’s  arena.  It  contrives  licenses,  formulas, 
titles,  clauses,  “trusts,”  just  in  order  to  exclude  the  assumed 
“outsiders”  and  keep  clear  the  turf  for  the  privileged  classes, 
races  and  denominations.  Then  come  governmental  interfer¬ 
ence,  protection  of  favored  industries  and  professions  by  tariffs, 
customs  and  diplomas,  huge  armies,  fortifications  and  navies, 
wars  with  loans  and  bonds,  public  expenditures,  frauds  and  im¬ 
positions,  all  accompanied  by  wastefulness,  profitable  to  the  few 
at  the  expense  of  the  totality  of  the  community. 

An  immense  share  of  woe  and  warfare,  with  no  small  pro¬ 
portion  of  economic  poverty  and  misery  are  derived  from  social, 
racial,  ethnic  and  religious  prejudices,  accompanied  by  our 
political  and  industrial  crises  and  revolutions,  which  render 
all  our  prudence  and  foresight  futile  and  vain. 

Last,  not  least,  come  our  false  systems  of  charity.  Such 
charity  often  is  not  sympathy,  but  the  deathblow  to  the  chances 
of  the  impoverished  social  strata.  It  keeps  them  momentarily 
from  starvation,  but  definitely  plunges  them  into  torpor,  inertia, 
despair  and  improvidence.  It  takes  away  the  stimulus  to  effort 
and  robs  them  of  the  last  spark  of  courage,  energy,  self-respect 
and  self-reliance.  All  the  above  factors  together  create,  with 
pauperism,  decrepitude  and  immorality,  mutiny,  vice  and  crime, 
excess  of  the  worst  kind  of  population,  lowering  of  wages,  of 
human  dignity,  of  work,  adventurous  and  reckless  daring,  dis¬ 
content,  panic,  war,  socialism  and  revolutions.  They  are  a  con¬ 
stant  menace  to  civilized  society.  See  on  this,  among  other 
wise  economists,  Joseph  Gamier,  “Elements  de  Finances,”  page 


CAUSES  OF  POVERTY. 


29 


285.  Philanthropy,  self-sacrifice  and  poor-rates  are  no  remedy 
here. 

Utterly  chimeric  and  Utopian  are  the  above-alluded-to  social¬ 
istic  and  communistic  schemes.  No;  the  social  problem  cannot 
be  solved  in  one  bound,  by  one  remedy,  one  sudden,  all-saving 
panacea.  Only  step  by  step,  by  educating  and  energizing,  by 
experimenting  and  trying,  improving  here,  discarding  stumbling 
blocks  there,  we  may  gradually  attain  at  the  millennium,  when 
plutocracy  and  pauperism,  wasting  and  starvation,  with  igno¬ 
rance  and  hypocrisy,  will  be  eliminated;  when  reason,  knowl¬ 
edge  and  competency,  virtue  and  contentment,  will  become  the 
heritage  of  mortals.  A  panacea  for  that  there  is  not.  We  quote 
in  conclusion  the  following  from  J.  B.  Say1  concerning  ill-ad¬ 
vised  charity: 

Charity  was  practiced  from  time  immemorial  in  the  Jewish 
Community  and  State.  We  shall  treat  of  that  largely  further 
on.  But  these  charities  were,  as  emphasized,  duties  to  the  needy, 
not  alms  to  the  paupers.  The  rich  were  rich  on  condition  to  as¬ 
sist  the  temporarily  poor  to  become  independent.  They  remained 
citizens  and  brothers,  not  outcasts.  The  Jewish  charities  were 
benevolence,  and  a  leading  feature  of  the  Jewish  community 
and  society.  Respectable  poor  were  benefited  in  such  a  way 
that  they  never  knew  or  saw  their  benefactors.  It  was  handed 
to  them  in  the  room  of  silence,  a  special  discreet  place  set  apart 
for  such  delicate  cases.  But  in  the  Ghetto,  and  even  now,  out  of 
the  Ghetto,  this  delicacy,  this  discretion  and  this  respectability 
are  gone.  There  is  a  good  deal  of  boisterous,  self-seeking  osten¬ 
tation  in  giving,  and  often  as  much  abject  boldness  in  taking. 
The  charity  is  simply  almsgiving,  and  the  beneficiaries  are 
mostly  paupers,  professional  beggars.  The  charity  institution  is 
on  the  one  hand  an  occasion  for  display  and  domineering,  and 
on  the  other,  one  of  pauperizing,  degrading  and  nurturing  an  un¬ 
desirable  crowd  of  mendicants  and  “ schnorrers /’  The  Gentile 
Charity  bears  the  same  features.  The  wretched  Ghetto  might 
excuse  it,  not  so  free  Israel  with  modern  resources  open  to  it. 

'[J.  B.  Say,  Paris  (1861)  “  Economie  Politique,”  p.  486.] 


30 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


Tlie  rabbis  count  eight  kinds  of  charity,  viz,  giving  alms  to  the 
poor,  sullenly  or  ostentatiously,  is  the  least  meritorious,  the  low¬ 
est  charity.  The  highest  is,  to  assist,  encourage  and  uphold  the 
drooping  and  tottering,  lending  them  money  or  one’s  influence 
or  goods  for  resuming  business,  or  offering  them  work,  or  op¬ 
portunities  for  a  livelihood,  going  in  partnership  with  them, 
dealing  fairly  and  kindly  with  them,  treating  them  as  fellow- 
men  and  brothers,  saving  their  self-respect  and  self-reliance  and 
thus  putting  them  upon  their  own  feet.  That  is  charity  indeed. 

Mosaic  Equality  and  Solidarity  Universalized. 

That  is  the  charity  recommended  by  Mosai&n  and  prophet- 
ism.  That  is  benevolence  and  humanity,  that  is  honest  protec¬ 
tion,  elevation,  sympathy,  encouragement  of  our  next,  the  reali¬ 
zation  of  “Love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself.”  It  starts  from  soli¬ 
darity,  respect  for  human  brotherhood ;  it  proceeds  to  fairness, 
justice,  forbearance,  and  develops  into  benevolence,  dignity, 
sympathy.  It  begins  with  freedom  and  equality,  with  the  right 
of  all  to  aspire  to  happiness,  to  one  right  and  one  duty  for  all, 
and  hence  equal  chances  in  the  struggle  for  existence.  Our  no¬ 
ble  United  States  Constitution  opens  with  the  axiom :  “It  is  self- 
evident  that  all  men  are  born  free  and  equal” — that  is  not 
really  a  universally  accepted  truism ;  all  men  are  not  born  free 
and  not  equal ;  but  it  is  a  wish  father  to  the  thought,  an  ethical 
truth,  indoctrinated  and  instilled  into  our  moral  nature, 
taught  and  inculcated  by  the  Mosaic  Law.  Shall  the  thrifty, 
the  intelligent  and  industrious  man  have  no  compensation  ?  The 
Thora  says :  He  shall.  The  fruit  of  his  labor  is  his ;  no  commu¬ 
nism!  Shall  the  vicious,  lazy  and  stupid  one  not  feel  his  infe¬ 
riority  ?  The  Thora  says :  He  shall.  Poverty  and  dependence 
shall  be  the  consequence.  Shall  he  be  forever  crushed ;  he  and 
his  family?  The  Thora  says:  Ho!  Have  patience,  encourage, 
stimulate  him  to  improve  and  better  his  condition.  Society  shall 
uplift  him,  reach  him  out  a  friendly  hand,  assist  him  to  rise, 
make  another  effort,  begin  again  and  become  self-sustaining  and 
a  useful  citizen  again.  This  is  Mosaic  solidarity  and  benevo- 


MOSAIC  EQUALITY  AND  SOLIDARITY  UNIVERSALIZED. 


31 


lence.  He  lias  jeopardized  his  independence  and  freedom,  lost 
his  house  and  his  family  acre.  Well,  the  year  of  Eelease  and 
of  jubilee  shall  remedy  it.  In  the  meantime  “treat  him  as  a 
brother ;  rob  him  not  of  his  chances ;  crush,  frown  and  work 
him  not  down ;  remember,  a  poor  brother  is  a  brother  still. 
In  the  meantime  shall  he  starve,  beg,  live  on  alms,  or  on  air? 
Ho !  25  of  each  100,  about,  of  the  produce  of  the  soil  are  set 

aside  for  all  sorts  of  unfortunates,  poor,  lazy,  Levite,  stranger, 
orphan  and  the  widow,  not  as  an  alms,  but  as  a  duty !  Why  ? 
Does  Mosaism  favor  Communism?  Ho!  Ho;  it  accepts  the 
hoary  doctrine  of  Solidarity.  It  is  just  that  the  intelligent 
and  thrifty  shall  have  more;  but  it  is  unjust  that  the  lazy,  im¬ 
poverished  and  stupid  shall  have  nothing;  the  first  no  doubt 
profits  by  the  latter ;  getting  their  own  share  and,  in  addition, 
the  share  of  the  latter  one.  It  is  just  and  fair  that  they  do 
something  for  these  unfortunates,  to  keep  them  from  starvation 
and  help  them  to  rise  again  and  stand  on  their  own  feet.  There¬ 
fore,  teaches  Mosaism,  Solidarity,  humanity  and  benevolence, 
not  as  an  ideal,  a  scheme  for  the  far-off  “Kingdom  of  Heaven,” 
but  for  this  terrestrial,  tangible,  realistic  world,  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  a  duty  of  justice  and  prudence. 

Can  we  complain  of  lack  of  love  and  charity  in  Mosaism? 
Heed  we  go  elsewhere  to  look  for  it?  Must  we  construct  new 
ethics  instead  of  the  prophetic  ones?  Ho!  We  have  them  abun¬ 
dantly  in  our  chapters  in  discussion.  And  that  is  the  touchstone 
of  divine  legislation,  made  to  elevate  man,  create  nations,  avoid 
landgrabbing,  accaparation,  plutocracy,  with  dangerous,  vicious 
tastes,  abnormal  appetites,  vanities  and  ruinous  wastefulness,  on 
one  hand,  and  on  the  other,  pauperism,  wretchedness,  ignorance 
and  vice ;  and  gradually  develop  a  vast,  homogeneous,  evenly 
and  justly  balanced  democracy  of  free,  equal  and  happy  citi¬ 
zens.  That  is  the  scope  of  the  Mosaic  solidarity  and  charity- 
laws  in  discussion  here. 

Analysis  of  Biblical  Benevolence. 

We  shall  now  analyze  the  above  quoted  verses  and  find  out 
that  the  Mosaic  Solidarity  and  sympathy  is  entirely  different 


32 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


from  the  current  charities  and  almsgiving.  Its  final  aim  is 
rather  to  do  away  with  all  habitual  poverty:  “Let  no  pauper- 
class  arise  among  you  (V  M.,  15,  4).  That  means  give  the 
poor  work,  encourage  him,  assist  him  in  such  a  way,  as  to 
make  him  self-sustaining,  so  as  nevermore  to  apply  for  help ; 
assist  the  poor  by  eradicating  poverty.  The  modem  poor- 
laws  are  far  from  recognizing  solidarity  as  their  starting  point. 
There  lurks  rather  in  them  a  good  deal  of  selfishness,  ostenta¬ 
tion  and  overbearing,  on  one  side;  meanness  and  prostration  on 
the  other.  They  are  nearly  all  more  degrading  than  elevating. 
They  keep  the  poor  from  sheer  starvation,  but  breed  and  feed 
pauperism;  first  comes  unequal  competition  with  preferment, 
and  pushes  the  weaker  to  the  wall ;  unequal,  unfair  competition, 
remorseless  and  privileged,  heartless  and  headless,  without  a 
spark  of  humanity  and  solidarity;  that  is  the  great  source  of 
pauperism.  The  weaker  rival,  crushed  and  ruined,  in  spirit 
and  resources,  is  kept,  fiendishly,  in  chronic  pauperism,  as  a 
stag  hunted  down  by  a  barking  pack  of  dogs,  until  he  surrenders, 
poor  and  broken-hearted,  a  beggar,  soon  an  object  of  police  sur¬ 
veillance  and  the  charity  society,  his  outlet  becomes  the  hospital 
and  the  poorhouse,  or  the  workhouse  and  the  penitentiary. 
Thus  most  of  the  modern  poor-laws,  without  solidarity,  sympa¬ 
thy,  or  a  drop  of  real  charity,  are  often  the  highway  to  pauper¬ 
ism,  to  moral,  social  and  economic  degradation.  They  render 
their  object  a  burden  to  society,  a  shame  to  the  community,  a 
standing  menace  to  the  State ;  Communistic  or  revolutionary 
itchings  are  the  outcome  of  such  wretched  Poor-Laws. 

Another  scheme  is  the  Mosaic  charity  and  solidarity.  It 
means:  Live  and  let  live,  assist  not  by  alms,  but  help  to  inde¬ 
pendence;  shield  the  poor  and  eradicate  pauperism.  How 
that  scheme  is  not  only  noble,  generous,  ideal ;  it  is  more — it  is 
wise  and  just;  it  is  written  not  only  in  the  Law,  but  also  in 
the  heart,  but  also  in  the  brain  and  logic  of  man.  It  does  not 
declare,  with  Mr.  Joseph  Chamberlain,  the  English  Eadical 
once,  later  of  Boer  fame,  that  “the  rich  must  pay  a  ransom  to 
the  poor,”  but  it  opines  that  it  is  just  that  the  wealthy  should 


ANALYSIS  OF  BIBLICAL  BENEVOLENCE. 


33 


effectually  help  the  poor,  since  the  first  have  profited  by  the  lat¬ 
ter,  since  the  alert  and  successful  ones  profit  by  the  successless. 
It  is  an  iron  fact  that  the  lucky,  wise  and  able  get  the  share  of 
the  luckless,  weak  and  thriftless,  even  by  fair  means.  They  get 
not  only  their  own  share,  nay,  voluntarily  or  involuntarily,  the 
incapacity,  the  imprudence,  the  vice  or  the  misfortune  of  the 
poor  redound,  for  the  time  being,  to  the  benefit  and  swell  the 
portion  of  the  victor  in  the  struggle  for  existence.  How  come 
in  the  unfair  means  of  overreaching  and  exploiting.  All  that, 
if  left  unchecked,  will  produce  the  worst  plutocracy  and  pauper¬ 
ism.  And  since  chronic  poverty  and  luxurious  wasting  can  but 
tend,  in  fine,  to  the  disadvantage  of  all,  the  wealthy  themselves 
included,  it  is  therefore  just  and  wise,  not  simply  kind  and 
charitable,  that  they  should  assist  the  needy  to  a  competency. 
This  teaches  alike  religion  and  political  economy ;  the  divine  and 
the  human  laws  coincide  herein. 

This  aim  of  the  Biblical  humanity  and  charity  laws  is  thus 
summed  up  in  V.  M.,  15.4-10:  “ That  there  may  he  no  pauper 
among  you ”  (though  there  will  be  enough  of  poor  ones1),  for 
“the  poor  man  will  not  be  missing  in  the  land.”  Ho  illusions ! 
Poor  ones  there  will  ever  be  in  human  society ;  the  communistic 
ideal  is  futile ;  but  look  out  that  the  poor  shall  become  no  pau¬ 
per  ;  let  not  unscrupulous  and  unfair  competition,  selfishness  and 
social  ostracism  close  against  him  all  the  avenues  of  production. 
The  great  institutions  of  the  Jubilee,  the  year  of  Release,  and 
the  Sabbath,  of  which  we  have  elsewhere  treated2  and  shall 
yet  continue,  were  created  in  that  behalf,  the  bodily  rest  and 
recreation,  the  mental  and  moral  elevation  and  education,  the 
personal  freedom,  and  the  hereditary  cottage  of  the  poor,  etc., 
are  safeguarded  by  the  law.  It  bids  the  wealthy  to  leave  for 
him  part  of  his  own  crops,  to  admit  him  to  his  hospitality ;  to 
spend  liberally  and,  better  even,  to  lend  him ;  not  to  be  a  hard 
creditor,  or  a  hard  master.  Whilst  the  Years  of  Release  and  of 
Jubilee  aim  at  a  total  renovation  and  restoration  of  society. 

fiVDN  ^3  PIVP  13  dsn  ,pNH  3“lp»  bin'  N1?  '3  (V  M.  XV.  4-10) 

JSee  “Spirit  of  Biblical  Legislation,”  pages  83  and  137,  etc. 


34 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


All  that  shows  the  grand  statesmanlike, far-sighted  object  :“That 
there  shall  be  no  pauper  class  among  you ;”  that  there  may  be  a 
chance  for  everyone  to  gain  a  livelihood  and  “be  happy  in  the 
land  allotted  them.”  Here  the  idea  is  propounded  that  a  just 
distribution  of  wealth  with  a  fair  contentment  of  all,  should  be 
the  great  object  of  the  State  and  the  nation ;  that  live  and  let  live 
is  the  best  policy.  With  the  zeal  of  a  philanthropist  and  the  accu¬ 
racy  of  an  economist,  the  Lawgiver  shows  solidarity  to  be  the 
safest  base  of  society  and  frames  his  positive  laws  in  accordance, 
as  will  be  specified  further  on. 

Mosaic  Benevolence,  Positive  and  Negative. 

The  Mosaic  laws  on  Humanity  and  Charity,  scattered 
throughout  the  entire  Pentateuch,  may  be  further  divided  into 
two  categories,  a  positive  and  a  negative  one :  Do  good  and  do 
no  harm;  be  helpful  to,  and  be  not  in  the  way  of,  your  next. 
Let  us  explain :  I.  The  positive  set  of  laws  commands  to  the 
citizen  an  actual  sacrifice ;  it  imposes  a  tangible  tax  or  gift,  for 
the  benefit  of  his  fellow-citizen ;  it  is  active  well-doing :  Do  unto 
thy  neighbor  what  thou  wishest  he  should  do  unto  thee.  It  is 
a  partial  self-sacrifice,  though  fully  recognizing  the  right  of  pri¬ 
vate  property,  though  not  believing  in  “ a  ransom  to  the  poor” 
the  Lawgiver,  nevertheless,  bids  us  give  up  a  fraction  of  our 
right  in  favor  of  a  neighbor  in  distress.  This  he  enacts  in  the 
name  of  God,  the  Lord  of  the  theocratic  State,  who  alone  is  ab¬ 
solute  owner  of  all,  and  which  ownership  he  ceded  to  the  citi¬ 
zens  on  condition  and  under  the  reservation  that  the  unlucky 
poor  shall  have  their  shares  under  the  tutelage  of  the  rich 
brother.  Such  diverse  imposts  are  levied  upon  the  annual  pro¬ 
duce  and  harvests.  The  harvest  belongs,  of  course,  to  him  who 
raised  it;  yet,  in  the  name  of  God,  solidarity  and  humanity,  a 
notable  part  thereof,  about  25  per  cent,  in  all,  goes  to  the 
needy,  as  a  right,  not  an  alms ! 

The  other  set  of  humanitarian  laws  in  Mosaism  is: 
II.,  negative,  laws  of  omission,  not  of  commission,  of 
prohibition,  abstention  from  doing.  “Do  not  unto  thy 


MOSAIC  BENEVOLENCE,  POSITIVE  AND  NEGATIVE. 


35 


neighbor  what  thou  wouldst  not  he  should  do  unto  thee.” 
This  negative  benevolence  was  later  inculcated  by  Hillel  the 
elder ;  the  positive  side  was  upheld  by  the  founder  of  Christian¬ 
ity.  Mosaism  embodies  both  sides,  but  the  negative  side  is  pre¬ 
ponderant,  and  justly  so,  as  we  shall  further  see.  It  corresponds 
best  to  the  modern  economic  principle  of  “Laissez  oiler,  laissez 
faire” — get  thee  out  of  thy  neighbor’s  way,  hinder  nobody ;  live 
and  let  live ;  do  no  harm ;  remember  thy  neighbor,  too,  has  a 
right  to  exist.  Weighty  as  the  first,  positive  set  of  laws  are, 
as  we  shall  soon  point  out,  the  second  set,  the  negative  ones,  are 
infinitely  more  numerous,  varied,  more  accentuated  and  really 
important.  The  Lawgiver  intimates  plainly  that  when  these 
negatives  are  conscientiously  carried  out,  the  positive  ones  might 
be  superfluous  and  dispensed  with ;  here,  we  believe,  he  is  su¬ 
premely  in  the  right.  Let  every  man  have  his  due ;  let  nobody 
encroach  upon  his  neighbor’s  limits,  and  no  one  will  need  a 
charity.  Hature  is  built  on  justice,  not  charity.  Let  simple  jus¬ 
tice  prevail,  and  we  may  dispense  with  human  mercy.  Let  na¬ 
ture  and  society  allow  to  everyone  the  same  chances  in  the  strug¬ 
gle  for  existence,  and  nobody  will  ask  for  a  gratuitous  favor. 
True,  Shakespeare  said:  “If  everyone  will  have  his  due,  nobody 
will  escape  whipping.”  Well,  then,  people  should  condone  mu¬ 
tually,  and  none  need  a  charity;  prudence  would  advise  not  to 
“cast  stones  from  a  glass  house,”  or  to  “see  the  beam  in  their  own 
eye,  before  they  point  to  the  splinter  in  the  neighbor’s  eye.” 
But  everyone  has  not  the  same  chances  in  the  struggle  for  exist¬ 
ence.  One  runs  his  race  with  wings  to  his  body,  and  another 
with  chains  to  his  feet.  Equal  and  free  competition  is  right,  but 
competition  is  not  free  or  equal.  Have  all  the  same  chances  in 
life’s  career,  in  the  advantages  of  birth,  of  health,  of  personal 
beauty  and  size,  of  education  and  patronage,  of  examples  of  mo¬ 
rality,  effort  and  wisdom  ?  Let  the  arena  of  life’s  battle  be 
open  to  all,  and  on  the  same  terms ;  then  we  shall  have,  with 
rare  exceptions,  equality  of  fortunes ;  we  shall  have  a  real  de¬ 
mocracy,  a  genuine  and  fair  average  parity  in  brain,  muscle, 
pocket  and  station.  Then  we  shall  surely  not  need  of  any  posi- 


36 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


tive  charity;  let  everyone  have  and  do  right  and  justice  and 
we  might  pretty  much  abolish  all  active  philanthropy,  extreme 
cases  excepted.  The  fact  is :  Active  charity  is  the  last  resource, 
a  sheet-anchor,  a  makeshift,  partially  to  make  good  social 
wrongdoing;  charity  is  a  poor  amends  for  cruel  wrong;  active 
benevolence  is  but  an  impotent  effort  to  fill  up  the  yawning 
gaps,  lack  of  justice;  for  every  one  dollar  of  almsgiving  a  hun¬ 
dred  have  been  stolen  or  misplaced ;  for  every  tear  of  sympathy 
there  are  a  hundrd  shrieks  of  suffering  innocence.  Could  any 
lawgiver  construct  a  Commonwealth  with  full  justice  to  each 
and  all,  there  would  hardly  be  need  or  even  opportunity  for 
charity  to  any;  all  almshouses,  asylums,  hospitals,  workhouses 
and  orphanages  might  be  closed.  This  ethical  and  economical 
aspect  appears  to  be  the  Mosaic  standpoint. 

Returning  now  to  our  Biblical,  positive  laws  on  humanity 
and  sympathy,  let  us  consider,  first,  the  alluded-to  three  institu¬ 
tions,  of  the  greatest  importance  to  Society.  They  are  the 
Jubilee,  the  Year  of  Release,  and  the  Sabbath,  considered  from 
the  purely  politico-socio  standpoint ;  let  us  carefully  set  them 
forth  in  the  following  historic  survey : 

The  Social  Problem  in  Greece  and  Rome. 

Since  mankind  began  to  form  into  communities  and  states, 
the  great  difficulty  stared  the  lawgiver  into  the  face  how  to 
steer  safely  the  ship  of  society  between  the  Scylla  and  Charyb- 
dis  of  exorbitant  wealth  and  abject  poverty.  The  modern  so- 
called  Social  problem  is  as  old  as  humanity  itself.  Society  had 
its  rudiments  in  the  family,  the  tribe  and  the  clan.  No  doubt 
the  head  of  the  family,  the  patriarch,  was  the  impartial  holder 
of  the  communal  property,  which  he  fairly  utilized  for  the  good 
of  all.  But  when  these  naive  conditions  were  no  more,  when 
conquest  and  self-defense  compelled  many  tribes  to  form  them¬ 
selves  into  one  people,  the  chieftain  soon  proved  to  be  partial 
to  his  friends,  his  vassals,  satellites  and  assistants.  Hence  there 
arose  the  differentiation  of  rich  and  poor.  The  rich  had  every 
interest  tn  uphold  the  ruling  dynasty;  the  poor  could  hope  but 


THE  SOCIAL  PROBLEM  IN  GREECE  AND  ROME. 


37 


from  a  revolution.  The  lawgiver,  be  he  governed  by  the  de¬ 
sire  to  better  the  condition  of  all,  or  only  to  secure  the  well¬ 
being  of  his  own,  the  ruling  class,  had  to  grapple  with  the 
Social  Problem,  how  to  ameliorate  the  lot  of  the  poor,  or  at 
least  to  reconcile  them  to  the  social  arrangements.  So  we  see 
Draco,  in  Athens,  try  to  get  acquiescence  by  intimidation  and 
cruel  punishments ;  Solon  resumed  his  work,  and  succeeded  bet¬ 
ter  by  dividing  his  society  into  dominant  and  subject  races,  and 
opening  to  the  first  the  avenues  of  wealth  by  conquest,  industry, 
commerce  and  arts.  But  he  did  not  fully  succeed.  The  two 
extremes,  Plutocracy  and  mob-rule,  kept  the  State  in  constant 
agitation.  Before  them  Lycurgus,  of  Sparta,  introduced  a  par¬ 
tial  or  masked  aristocratic  communism.  The  subject-clans  were 
reduced  to  absolute,  cruel  enslavement,  Helots,  and  the  domi¬ 
nant  race  was  constituted  as  an  entrenched,  military  camp,  a 
fighting  aristorcracy,  under  two  hereditary  leaders,  with  a  so¬ 
cialistic  regimen,  a  kind  of  “Philanstere,”  where  property  was 
not  legally  abolished,  still  almost  useless.  It  really  was  no  lead¬ 
ing  factor  of  the  community,  because  it  was  hardly  worth  while 
possessing.  The  citizen  was  but  a  member  of  a  standing  army ; 
the  State  was  the  unit,  the  citizen  a  cipher,  swelling  the  value 
of  the  State.  The  citizen  had  hardly  a  family  of  his  own ;  he 
did  not  live  with  and  educate  his  children ;  the  State  did.  His 
children  hardly  belonged  to  the  father,  nor  was  his  wife  his, 
either  by  mutual  selection  or  exclusive  possession ;  his  meals  he 
had  to  take  in  public,  at  the  public  eating  table,  together  with 
his  adult  fellow-citizens,  not  with  his  family  or  friends  or 
guests.  His  dress  was  a  homely,  rigidly  plain,  officially  pre¬ 
scribed  miltiary  uniform ;  his  home  and  furnishing  were  primi¬ 
tive  and  scant,  prescribed  alike  for  all,  by  law  and  custom;  all 
luxury  and  refinement  was  excluded ;  his  amusements,  tastes, 
occupations,  honors,  glory  and  distinctions  were  all  of  a  public, 
national,  military  character.  His  field-work  was  done  by  the 
public  slaves ;  he  had  no  industry,  no  arts,  no  commerce,  and 
could  by  no  means  enrich  himself.  And  wherefore  ?  He  could 
not  buy  his  neighbor’s  place,  field,  freedom  or  vote ;  his  money 


38 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


he  could  not  profitably  invest  or  loan  out,  but  bad  to  keep  it  and 
guard  it  in  big  copper  coins.  Thus  for  centuries  during  the 
reign  of  the  Lycurgian  Laws,  riches  were  hardly  worth  having. 
Lacedemon  was,  in  fact  though  not  in  name,  a  Communistic 
society,  a  military  camp,  a  Philanstere  governed  by  her  sages, 
the  Archonts  and  Ephori.  She  made  herself  formidable,  not 
loved,  nor  envied.  The  citizen,  the  man,  the  woman,  the  par¬ 
ent — all  was  sacrificed  to  the  State.  The  State  was  the  object, 
man  and  woman  the  tolls,  yea  the  ciphers ;  man  and  woman  were 
sacrificed  to  the  State.  Lycurgus  had  thus  succeeded  in  avoid¬ 
ing  plutocracy  and  pauperism,  classes  and  masses ;  but  the  State 
rested  on  slavery  and  war.  He  solved  the  social  problem  by  sac¬ 
rificing  all  society  is  made  for,  manhood,  womanhood,  freedom, 
virtue,  happiness,  and  so  Sparta  was  a  failure  after  all  its  arti¬ 
ficial  greatness.  It  claimed  parenthood  with  Israel,  but  without 
proof.1 

In  Rome  we  find  first  a  military  royalty,  which,  after  an  aris¬ 
tocratic  revolution  and  a  popular  uprising,  turned  into  an  ag¬ 
gressive  aristocracy.  By  war  and  conquest,  the  wealth  of  the 
world  began  to  pour  in.  Soon  the  unscrupulous  demagogues, 
the  popular  patricians,  and  the  successful  imperators  drew  that 
wealth  into  their  private  coffers,  while  the  humbler  masses  of 
citizens,  the  large  majority,  got  nothing  but  the  blows.  So 
dangerous  discontents  and  convulsions  set  in.  As  a  doubtful 
remedy  and  ventilator,  the  Senate  contrived  to  continue  aggres¬ 
sive  war  abroad,  in  order  to  avoid  invidious  civil  war  within, 
and  upheld  the  people’s  cravings  for  their  share  of  the  booty. 
After  the  secession  of  the  Plebeians  on  the  Sacred  Mount  to 
their  obtaining  the  privilege  of  the  Tribuneship,  more  conces¬ 
sions  were  necessary  and  also  made  to  their  avidity  (B.  C.  494, 
Secessio  Plebis  in  Sacrum  Montem.)  Cassius  Viscellinus  tried 
in  486  B.  C.  a  modification  of  the  land-laws  in  favor  of  the  Ple¬ 
beians  ;  they  acquired  also  the  right  of  intermarrying  with  the 

■It  was,  as  such,  in  actual  alliance  with  the  Maccabean  leaders.  See 
Josephus  and  my  II  J.  Commonwealth  and  “Maccabean  War”  on  that. 


THE  SOCIAL  PROBLEM  IN  GREECE  AND  ROME. 


39 


Patricians ;  they  afterwards  obtained  that  of  occupying  the  con¬ 
sulship;  but  all  that  was  in  vain;  it  would  not  bridge  over  the 
Social  Problem,  the  abyss  between  the  rich  and  the  poor.  As  an 
old  safety-valve,  the  Senate  continued  to  evolve  war  from  war, 
never  stopping,  until  Rome  gradually  conquered  the  world ; 
all  in  order  to  satisfy  the  Social  Problem,  the  demands  of  the 
poor  for  their  share.  But  all  was  in  vain.  That  abyss  would  not 
be  bridged  over;  it  rather  widened.  Two  tribunes  of  the 
Gracchus  family  had  introduced,  boldly,  the  lex  agraria,  viz,  to 
give  public  lands  to  the  poor  and  form  colonies  for  them ;  the 
existence  of  the  State  was  in  imminent  danger,  the  agrarian 
innovations  were  put  down,  together  with  the  schemers ;  such 
socio-economical  maneuvers  were  repeated  by  the  tribunes  again 
and  again — see  Tit.  Levins’  “History  of  Rome,”  II  Book  etc. — 
by  wholesale  assassinations ;  but  the  strife  between  Plutocracy 
and  Pauperism  would  not  be  settled.  It  resurrected  again  and 
again,  as  the  thousand  heads  of  the  hydra,  with  the  civil  wars  of 
Marius  and  Sulla,  of  Caesar  and  Pompey,  of  Octavian  and  An¬ 
tony,  etc.  It  culminated  at  last  in  the  overthrow  of  the  great  re¬ 
public,  under  Emperor  Augustus  Caesar.  Still  the  Social  Prob¬ 
lem  was  not  solved.  This  survey  of  the  leading  States  of  ancient 
times  shows  the  gravity  of  that  everlasting  feud  between  exorbi¬ 
tant  wealth  and  chronic  poverty,  between  employer  and  employee. 
So  it  was  in  Greece  and  Rome,  so  in  other  countries  and  other 
times;  for  the  social  problem  embraces  all  countries  and  ages. 
It  is  as  old  as  the  mountains  and  calls  for  other  remedies  than 
those  tried  there.  The  social  question  is  as  old  as  Society.  We 
did  not  need  to  wait  for  Marx,  Tolstoi,  Bebel  and  Lasalle  to  in¬ 
vent  it.  We  find  it  distinctly  in  every  advanced  social  phase — 
in  Hammurabi’s  Stela,  in  the  Mosaic  Covenant  and  in  Horace’s 
Satires.  The  latter  one  boldly  and  most  plainly  declares:  “Na¬ 
ture  has  made  the  owner  of  the  soil  neither  him,  me  or  anybody 
else.  He  dispossessed  me,  chance  or  chicanery  will  expel  him, 
and  him  (will  expel)  his  heir.  This  acre  now  is  Umbrenius’, 
recently  mine,  soon  another’s ;  temporary  usage  is  all.  Hence  be 


40 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


brave  and  prepare  for  any  emergency.”1  Against  these  evils 
had  the  Mosaic  Legislator,  also,  to  contend.  Let  us  see  what 
remedy  he  proposes. 

The  Social  Problem  in  Mosaism,  McGlyn,  Papacy. 

Placing  himself  upon  a  higher  platform,  assuming  a  more 
absolutistic  and  theocratic  standpoint  than  Greece  and  Rome 
mentioned,  or  the  Babylonian  and  Egyptian  priestly  States, 
Mosaism  started  with  the  axiom  that :  Everything  in  existence 
belongs  to  God  alone.  “Mine  are  the  Benai  Israel;  mine 
is  all  the  land.  Ihvh’s  is  the  earth  and  its  fulness,”2  and  God 
lends  that  to  his  people,  to  the  citizens,  his  worshippers  and  sub¬ 
jects,  who  shall  thankfully  use  the  good  things  of  the  world,  but 
not  selfishly  and  miserly.  ISTo;  they  shall  liberally  enjoy  them, 
together  with  their  fellow-man,  and  leave  the  soil  intact  to  their 
successors.  That  standpoint,  politically  looked  at,  is  analogous 
to  the  tenure  of  land  in  the  Teutonic  monarchies  during  the  Mid¬ 
dle  Ages.  The  king  conferred  a  grant  of  land  to  his  followers 
on  condition  of  loyalty,  of  performing  vassal  services,  and  leav¬ 
ing  the  estate  entire  to  their  posterity,  on  the  same  terms.  The 
feudal  landowner  was  but  the  delegated  proprietor  of  the  grant ; 
he  had  to  do  homage  for  it  to  the  Chief ;  whilst  the  king  was  the 
only  proprietor  of  the  soil,  in  the  last  resort,  as  the  locotenant  on 
earth  of  God,  the  Supreme  Lord. 

When  later,  gradually,  the  Popes  laid  claim  to  the  suzerainty 
of  the  globe,  and  pretended  that  every  sovereign  in  Christendom 
should  take  his  investiture  from,  and  swear  fealty  to,  the  See  of 
Rome,  as  successors  of  St.  Peter,  the  legal  position  was  that  same 

'Nec  propriae  telluris  herum  natura  uegue  ilium, 

Nec  me  nec  quemquam  statuit :  nos  expulit  ille, 

Ilium  out  nequities  ant  vafri  inscita  juris, 

Postremum  expellet  certe  vivacior  heres, 

Nunc  ager  Umbrini  subnomine,  nuper  Ofellae 
Dictus,  erit  nulli  proprius,  sed  cedet  in  usum, 

Nunc  mihi,  nunc  alii,  Quocirca  vivite  fortes, 

Fortiaque  adversis  opponite  pectora  rebus, 
aps.  24  :  1— II  M.  19,  5— II  M.  32,  13  and  33,  L 


THE  SOCIAL  PROBLEM  IN  MOSAISM,  MCGLYN,  PAPACY. 


41 


theocratic  one  mentioned,  viz :  God  is  sole  owner  of  the  land,  and 
He  gave  it  to  his  Vice-Gerent,  the  Messiah  or  Christ,  and  his 
successors,  the  Popes.  The  Roman  See  added  bnt  the  claim,  that 
St.  Peter  was  that  successor  and  the  Pope  his  locum  tenons. 
Hence  is  the  Pope  the  earthly  suzerain,  and  all  the  princes  owe 
him  homage.  Thus  later,  again,  when  Columbus  discovered 
America,  the  Pope  claimed  ownership  of  it  by  the  same  title,  and 
indeed  the  Spanish  monarchs  had  to  take  their  investiture  at  his 
hands.  Some  years  ago  a  Catholic  preacher,  Dr.  McGlyn,  took 
that  position  consciously  and  in  full  earnest,  as  the  position  of 
the  Pentateuch ;  but,  dropping  the  Papal  claims,  he  substituted 
a  popular  patriotic  claim ;  he  insisted  that  dear  Ireland’s  soil  be¬ 
longs  neither  to  the  Anglo-Saxon  nor  the  Norman  lords,  nor  to 
William  of  Orange,  nor  to  Oliver  Cromwell,  its  conquerors,  but, 
according  to  Mosaic  land  tenure,  it  belongs  to  God  alone,  who 
gave  it  to  the  Irish  people,  and  that  could  not  be  forfeited  by 
purchase  or  wrested  by  arms  and  conquest,  but  is  and  remains 
God’s,  the  only  Supreme  Lord,  and  the  Irish  people’s  as  his  ten¬ 
ants.  Of  course,  the  Church,  though  adopting  that  theory  as  to 
the  position  of  the  Popes,  declared  it  heresy  in  Dr.  McGlyn’s 
new  construction.  After  some  time  of  insisting  he  retracted  and 
re-entered  into  the  bosom  of  the  Church.  That  Irish  Tribune, 
with  much  show  of  right,  overlooked  the  fact  that  not  only 
the  Irish  are  God’s  children,  but  also  those  Anglo-Saxons,  etc., 
who,  after  them,  received  also  part  of  Irish  soil,  not  by  con¬ 
quest  from  Cromwell  and  Orange,  but,  from  generation  after 
generation,  for  value  paid,  in  best  faith;  that  they  had  pur¬ 
chased  and  did  not  conquer  the  soil;  just  as  the  good  Irish  did, 
previous  to  Cromwell.  HenCe  they,  too,  deserved  all  considera¬ 
tion,  and  these  contradictory  claims  can  now  be  reasonably  set¬ 
tled  only  by  arbitration  and  compromise,  not  by  rude  ejection 
or  learned  theories.  So  he  did  well  to  submit  to  the  Church  and 
common  sense. 

In  the  Biblical  theocracy  God  was  the  feudal  king  and  sole 
landowner.  Hence  we  read  (III  M.,  25,  23)  :  “And  the  soil 
shall  not  be  sold  forever,  for  mine  is  the  land  and  ye  are  but 


42 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


my  tenants  and  inhabitants.”  Upon  this  base  the  lawgiver  took 
a  middle  course,  just  between  communism  and  property-right. 
The  soil  was  inalienable,  and  so  was  the  personal  freedom  of 
the  citizen.  Ill  M.,  25,  40,  reads :  “If  thy  brother  will  impov¬ 
erish  and  be  sold  unto  thee,  thou  shalt  impose  no  slave-work  upon 
him.  As  a  hired  man  and  a  fellow-citizen  he  shall  be  with 
thee  till  the  Jubilee-year  comes,  when  he  with  his  children  shall 
leave,  free,  and  return  to  his  family  and  his  parental  estates,  for 
mine  they  are  .  .  .  They  shall  not  he  sold  as  slaves.” 

Building  upon  this  firm  ground,  that  God  and  the  State  alone 
are  landowners,  and  the  citizens  but  its  tenants  on  equal  terms, 
their  personal  freedom  and  their  hereditary  farms  to  be  and  to 
remain  inalienable,  the  Legislator  founded  and  grounded  his 
three  grand  institutions,  as  impregnable  and  eternal  strongholds 
against  the  encroachments  of  plutocracy  and  pauperism.  He 
consecrated  property,  he  discarded  communism,  he  granted  the 
freedom  and  the  initiative  of  the  individual ;  but  he  did  not 
go  to  the  extreme  of  giving  unchecked  career  and  full  allowance 
to  greedy  acquisition  by  unscrupulous,  artificial  competition. 
Communism  kills  all  spirit  of  free  emulation  and  robs  all  stim¬ 
ulus  and  motives  to  exertion ;  no  one  will  work  when  the  fruit  of 
his  labor  is  not  his  own.  When  there  is  no  difference  between 
capacity  and  imbecility,  between  acquiring  and  wasting,  between 
the  industrious  and  the  lazy,  between  the  wise  and  the  virtuous, 
and  the  foolish  and  vicious,  then  the  commonwealth  will  starve. 
On  the  other  hand  is  unchecked  competition,  usually  and  prac¬ 
tically  under  unequal  chances,  just  as  disastrous  to  the  true  in¬ 
terests,  the  advance  and  the  morality  of  society  as  communism 
is.  If  the  arena  of  life  were  open  to  all,  and  on  equal  terms , 
competition  would  be  just  and  politic.  But  these  terms  are  usu¬ 
ally  most  unjust  and  unequal.  Birth, education, example,  encour¬ 
agement,  wealth,  patronage,  position,  accident,  etc.,  help  the  one 
and  hinder  the  other.  Civilized  society  and  the  law  must,  there¬ 
fore,  protect  the  weaker  party.  Hence  our  economic  laws  of  the 
Pentateuch  chose  a  middle  course  between  the  two  extremes,  ef¬ 
fecting  a  compromise  by  which  these  two  extremes,  plutocracy 


THE  SOCIAL  PROBLEM  IN  MOSAISM,  MCGLYN,  PAPACY. 


43 


and  pauperism,  should  become  impossible.  These  institutions 
are,  we  have  seen,  the  Jubilee,  the  Release-Year,  and  the  Sab¬ 
bath;  the  weekly  rest-day  is  the  social  pivot.  One  day  out  of 
seven  is  to  be  devoted  as  a  general  rest  for  the  dependents,  the 
stranger,  the  poor  and  the  domestic  brute  (II  M.,  20.10  and 
23.12)  :  “That  may  rest  thy  ox,  thy  slave  and  the  stranger.” 
Every  seventh  year  the  soil  is  to*  enjoy  an  agricultural  respite — 
no  ploughing,  tilling  or  sowing;  the  spontaneous  growth  is  to 
belong  to  the  menial,  the  stranger  and  the  brute  (III  M.,  25.3- 
7 ) .  All  debts  also — only  the  poor  borrowed  then — are  to  be  ex¬ 
tinguished  (V  M.,  15.1-5),  and  every  Hebrew  slave  is  to  go 
home  and  be  free  (II  M.,  21.2). 

“At  the  end  of  the  seventh  year  thou  shalt  have  a  release 
.  .  .  Every  creditor  shall  release  his  neighbor  of  his  debt 
.  .  .  Of  a  foreigner  thou  canst  exact  it ;  of  thy  brother  thou 
shalt  release  it.  It  is  called  the  Lord’s  release  ...  In 
order  that  there  shall  be  no  paupers  among  thee,  but  Ihvh  will 
prosper  thee  in  the  country  He  made  to  be  thy  inheritance.” 
There  can  no  doubt  be  entertained  that  the  Lawgiver  meant  a 
definite  and  absolute  cancelling  and  relinquishment  of  the  debts 
to  obviate  pauperism.  The  frequent  popular  rebellions  in  Greece, 
Asia  and  Rome  on  account  of  crushing  debts  and  usury  makes 
the  sense  of  that  institution  clear.  The  Roman  tribunes  remem¬ 
bered  it.  Cicero  in  his  Cataline  harangues  distinctly  alludes  to 
it  as  “The  new  tables.”  On  account  of  later,  more  commercial 
environments  the  Rabbis  did  not  insist  upon  abolition  in  its 
full,  real  sense.  It  was  a  bold  innovation  of  Hillel — the  Pros- 
bal  (a  Greek  word  meaning  postponement  of  payment,  pro¬ 
longation  of  the  debt),  or  depositing  the  claim  in  the  Court, 
which  stayed  its  forfeiture  and  made  it  good  and  valid  after 
the  year  of  release.  In  fine,  every  fiftieth  year  (III  M.,  25.10), 
or  seven  Release  periods,  all  men,  women,  houses,  farms  and  soil 
were  to  return  to  their  original  condition,  effecting  thus  a  total 
social  and  economical  renovation  and  restoration.  (See  “Spirit 
of  Bibl.  Legislation,”  page  83.) 


44 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


CHAPTER  D. 

The  Positive  Benevolence  Laws. 

These  three  great  institutions,  Sabbath,  Release  and  Jubilee, 
were  the  solid  foundation  upon  which  the  Mosaic  Society  was 
reared.  They  had  a  manifold  aspect,  but  we  consider  them  here 
from  the  economico-social  standpoint  only  as  affecting  the  Social 
Problem ,  most  far-reaching  and  going  to  the  root.  Since  exces¬ 
sive  riches  and  poverty  are  the  great  curse  of  society,  creating 
vice,  sloth,  overbearing  and  ambition,  on  one  hand,  and,  on  the 
other,  want,  misery,  degradation,  envy  and  mutiny,  sacrifice  of 
conscience,  dignity  and  liberty;  creating  standing  armies,  wars 
and  conquests,  with  servitude,  fraud,  violence  and  social  decay, 
the  Lawgiver  proposed  these  institutions  as  their  radical  rem¬ 
edy.  He  did  not  resort  to  the  masked  communism,  as  later 
Lacedaimon  did.  He  sanctioned  property,  labor  and  wages ;  he 
allowed  free  individuality,  effort  and  competition,  but  he  fenced 
them  in  with  strong  hedges,  by  moderating  the  selfish  tendencies 
and  harmonizing  them  writh  the  interests  of  all.  He  did  not 
sacrifice  the  individual  citizen  to  the  State-Moloch,  as  in 
Sparta  and  Rome,  but  he  compromised  between  them  by  his 
laws  of  humanity,  charity  and  solidarity.  He  tried  to  keep  up 
the  original  equitable  distribution  of  lands  by  not  allowing  any 
definite  alienation  of  the  hereditary  family  farm.  Every  50 
years  there  was  a  total  restoration  of  the  original  land-owner- 
ship.  Every  seventh  year  the  slave  became  free  and  returned 
to  his  family,  and  every  seventh  day  every  man  had  the  oppor¬ 
tunity  to  recuperate  bodily,  mentally,  and  thus  conceive  the  de¬ 
sire  and  the  means  to  rise  and  improve  ethically,  politically,  so¬ 
cially  and  economically.  Upon  such  a  foundation  the  Mosaic 
democracy  was  reared,  and  the  most  dangerous  obstacles,  plu¬ 
tocracy  and  pauperism,  with  their  manifold  baneful  accompani¬ 
ments,  discarded. 

This  Mosaic  proposition  as  a  cure  and  solution  of  the  Social 
Problem  contains  some  elements  which  even  today  might  be 


THE  POSITIVE  BENEVOLENCE  LAWS. 


45 


tried  with  the  hope  of  good  success.  To  secure  to  every  man  a 
family-acre,  inalienable  and  unsaleable,  would  be  a  powerful 
check  and  a  great  resource  against  pauperism  and  land-grab¬ 
bing,  even  today.  Even  today  it  would  help  solve  the  entire 
problem  of  avoiding  both  luxuriousness  and  want,  with  their 
train  of  envy,  hate,  degradation,  on  one  side,  and  ambition,  ex¬ 
travagance  and  despotism,  on  the  other.  The  reason  thereof  is 
that  in  primitive  times  land-property  was  the  property;  at  any 
rate,  the  chief  source  and  backbone  of  wealth.  Today,  industry, 
commerce,  capital,  talent,  inventions  and  labor  have  by  far  out¬ 
stripped  the  value  of  land-property ;  and  these  marketable  values 
are  personal  property,  hence  saleable  and  alienable ;  or  else  we 
must  resort  to  communism  and  abolish  property.  Therefore 
these  latter  factors  will  forever  continue  to  be  a  source  of  eco¬ 
nomical  inequality,  which  will  threaten  to  subvert  the  democ¬ 
racy  and  reopen  the  baneful  Social  Problem,  as  we  see  in  modern 
society,  even  in  our  free  United  States.  But  in  primitive  times,1 
when  those  agrarian  institutions  were  created,  they  were  most 
important  and  went  to  the  core  and  root  of  the  evil.  Still,  even 
in  our  highly  industrial  environments,  the  securing  of  an  in¬ 
alienable  family  farm  to  every  citizen  is  worth  while  consider¬ 
ing  and  may  remedy  at  least  the  excess  of  the  evils  of  plutocracy 
and  pauperism. 

By  these  three  great  institutions  the  Lawgiver  constituted  his 
State  as  a  purely  agricultural  and  cattle-breeding,  pastoral  com¬ 
munity,  curtailing  all  commerce  and  larger  industries.  Since  he 
declared  it  a  duty  to  loan  goods  and  money  to  the  poor,  to  loan 
it  without  interest  and  profit,  and  to  relinquish  the  unpaid  debts 
every  seventh  year,  this  was  to  be  a  formidable  drain  upon  the 
wealthy  and  a  powerful  assistance  to  the  impoverished.  And 
when  we  consider  that  the  accumulation  of  debts,  with  their 
usury,  was  the  great  source  of  social  discontent  and  upheavals  in 

'Primitive  by  comparison  with  ours.  Since  the  better  knowledge  by  the 
discoveries  of  the  ancient  literary  treasures,  we  begin  to  surmise  that  those 
times  were  not  primitive  at  all.  Maybe,  even  that,  as  the  Sabbath-rest  is 
pre-Mosaic,  so  the  Release  and  Jubilee  epochs  had  been  tried  in  previous 
times  and  later  forgotten. 


46 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


Greece  and  Home,  bringing  them  often  to  the  brink  of  destruc¬ 
tion,  and  at  last  led  to  civil  war,  to  despotism  and  subjugation, 
to  Cataline  and  Caesar,  we  must  accord  the  palm  of  far-sighted 
sagacity  to  the  Mosaic  propositions.  The  Sabbath,  the  Release 
Year  and  the  Jubilee  were  the  personal,  weekly  restoration,  the 
partial,  economical,  seven-yearly  restoration,  and  the  total  social 
fifty-yearly  restoration  of  the  Biblical  democracy,  guaranteeing 
the  equality,  the  freedom  and  the  bread  of  each  citizen  and  the 
permanency  of  the  democracy.  No  money-aristocracy  and  no 
pauper-servitude,  but  equal  chances  for  all — the  grandest  benev¬ 
olence,  humanity  and  charity  Laws  ever  enacted,  because  they 
meant  no  alms,  but  solidarity,  justice  and  fairness  to  all.  There 
is  and  was  in  ancient  and  modern  codes  a  law  of  Prescription 
or  Limitation.  When  a  citizen  had  occupied  an  estate  for  one 
hundred  years,  without  any  legal  opposition,  that  constituted 
him  the  legitimate  proprietor  of  the  estate,  without  any  further 
proof,  and  no  appeal  against  him  was  available.  That  is  in  fa¬ 
vor  of  aristocracy.  The  Mosaic  Law  had  no  such  a  law  of  Limi¬ 
tation.  On  the  contrary,  the  Year  of  Release  and  the  Jubilee 
constitute  a  reminder  of  restoration  and  rehabilitation  of  persons 
and  soil  to  the  original  owner,  that  his  right  never  was  forfeited, 
and  that  favored  democracy,  economic  equality,  with  political 
and  individual  liberty.  The  Release  and  Jubilee,  with  their 
effect  of  retrocession,  instead  of  limitation  and  forfeiture,  re¬ 
minded  the  land-grabbers  that  “A  hundred  years  of  injustice 
does  not  constitute  one  year  of  justice,”  as  once  pointedly  re¬ 
marked  a  Saxon  farmer  to  an  aristocratic  claimant  of  perpetual 
lordly  rights. 

Thus  the  Mosaic  Commonwealth  was  established  on  the  free¬ 
dom  of  person  and  of  soil,  harmonized  with  the  sacredness  of 
property,  labor  and  its  rewards.  No  Communism,  still  no  al¬ 
lowance  to  aristocracy,  plutocracy  and  abject  pauperism;  prop¬ 
erty  combined  with  morality  and  altruism.  Everyone  was  en¬ 
titled  to  the  fruit  of  his  labor,  every  stimulus  was  given  to 
work,  diligence  and  thrift,  with  full,  fair  competition,  still  with 
the  necessary  limitations  and  hedges  against  unfair  competition, 


THE  POSITIVE  BENEVOLENCE  LAWS. 


47 


land  appropriation,  buying  of  votes,  persons  and  influence,  abuse 
of  patronage,  tending  towards  final,  total  restoration  and  reno¬ 
vation  of  the  social  body  on  an  equal  economical  basis.  The 
person  and  the  family-acre  were  declared  inalienable,  whilst  per¬ 
sonal  acquisitions,  the  fruit  of  our  labor,  could  be  disposed  of ; 
bul  since  commerce,  industry  and  large  accumulated  capital 
were  rare,  the  social  equilibrium  could  not  be  much  endangered  ; 
wealth  and  power  remained  fairly  balanced,  and  we  never  hear 
of  any  such  upheavals  in  Jerusalem  or  Caesarea  as  we  do  in 
Greece  and  Rome,  bringing  the  State  and  the  people  to  the  very 
brink  of  ruin,  and  making  them  collapse  by  the  collision  of  their 
own  warring  classes.  The  first  and  the  second  Jewish  empire 
fell  by  a  formidable  pressure  from  without;  within,  they  ever 
remained  unshaken  and  firm,  thanks  to  their  institutions,  to 
such  a  degree  that  scarcely  had  the  legions  retired  when  the 
Rabbis  restored  the  State,  to  be  again  convulsed  and  finally  de¬ 
stroyed  by  external  enemies — never  from  within ;  they  had  no 
Social  Problem. 

Offerings,  Heaves,  Tithes  and  Other  Gifts  to  Priests, 
Levites,  Poor  and  Strangers;  Holidays. 

Mosaism,  now,  starting  with  the  view  that  the  soil  belongs  to 
God,  the  sole  owner  of  all,  and  that,  when  yielding  it  to  his  peo¬ 
ple,  he  reserved  certain  rights  to  the  poor,  ordained  the  following 
imposts  or  gifts  to  the  priests,  the  Levites,  the  indigent,  the 
widow,  orphan,  stranger,  etc.  It  ordained  2  of  100  for  the  sup¬ 
port  of  the  Temple  and  priests;  10  of  100  for  the  sustenance  of 
the  Levites,  the  assistants  in  the  Temple,  the  judges,  teachers, 
police,  etc.  It  allowed  further  10  of  100  to  the  poor,  the  wid¬ 
ows,  orphans  and  strangers.  Finally,  it  gave  to  the  latter  ones 
part  of  the  crops,  as  the  gleanings,  forgotten  sheaves,  the  edges 
of  the  field,  the  tops  of  the  fruit  trees,  etc  (III  M.,  22.22).  All 
that  may  have  constituted  about  one-fourth  of  the  entire  produce 
iu  grain,  fruit,  wine,  oil  and  cattle. 

Mosaism  institutes  three  yearly  festivals,  viz,  in  the  beginning 
of  spring,  of  summer  and  of  autumn,  the  beginning  and  closing 


48 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


of  the  grain  harvest  in  Judaea  and  the  close  of  the  fruit  harvest 
there.1  These  agricultural  holidays  are  at  the  same  time  seasons 
of  positive  charities,  recreation  for  the  poor  and  their  participa¬ 
tion  in  the  feasts  of  the  family  (III  M.,  23.1 ;  V  M.,  16.1,  etc.) : 
“Thou  shalt  rejoice  before  the  Eternal  thy  God,  thou,  thy  son 
and  thy  daughter,  thy  male  and  thy  female  servant  and  the  Le- 
vite,  the  stranger,  the  orphan  and  the  widow  .  .  .  for,  remem¬ 
ber,  a  slave  thou  hast  been  in  Egypt  .  .  .  therefore  I  ordain 
thee  this.”  The  Israelite  shall  enjoy  the  world’s  good  things  as 
divine  gifts,  in  company  with  the  poor,  well  remembering  that 
he  himself  was  once  poor,  yea,  a  slave ;  hence  no  overbearing, 
but  sympathy  and  solidarity,  live  and  let  live ! 

The  Talmud  extended  and  elaborated  these  Mosaic  gifts  as 
positive  duties,  in  diverse  Codes,  each  treating  of  one  of  the  above 
humanitarian  imposts,  everywhere  inculcating  to  befriend  the 
poor  and  make  them  feel  as  inmates  of  the  house,  especially  on 
festive  occasions,  and  thus  rendering  benevolence  and  good  deeds 
a  leading  trait  of  the  Hebraic  physiognomy.2 

The  Talmud  ox:  Legal  Gifts  to  the  Poor  ( Maimuni  Yad, 
Zeraim,  2 1-2 5). 3 

On  reaping  the  crop,  one  must  leave  the  edges  or  last  rows 
of  the  cultivated  field  for  the  poor.  The  same  on  gathering  the 
fruit  of  the  trees,  some  must  be  left  for  them.  This  is  called 
PeaJi,  as  written :  Thou  shalt  leave  them  (the  fruit)  to  the  poor 
and  the  stranger. — The  same  it  is  on  gathering  the  grain-ears 
into  sheaves ;  one  must  leave  to  the  poor  those  ears  which  drop 
down  whilst  gathering  them,  as  Leket.  Equally,  one  must  not 
pick  up  the  single  grapes  during  the  vine-crop,  or  the  scattered 
bunches  of  grapes  ( Peret  Oleloth).  The  same  in  making  up  the 
sheaves  and  forgetting  one  in  the  field,  one  shall  leave  it  for  the 
poor  ( Shikclia ).* 

'The  fourth  festival,  feast  of  lights,  in  winter,  completing  the  cycle,  was 
later  added,  representing  the  four  yearly  seasons,  together. 

:D':Dm  D'jom  bN-iU” 

3nibbiy  dis  ,nsQ  ,nrou’  ,t:pb  ,D"jy  nuno  nnbn 
4,Dpbn  yivp  t:pbi  ,bbiyn  xb  qc-un  .mca  iDiy  nron 
“pt?  nxs  nban  xb  .Dnix  miyn  ubi  'jyb 


BENEVOLENCE  AND  ALMS  IN  TALMUD. 


49 


All  these  belong  to  the  poor,  as  a  right,  not  a  voluntary  alms 
of  the  owner.  They  belong  to  Jewish  and  non- Jewish  poor,  a 
humanitarian  duty1  in  Judaea,  but,  rabbinically,  in  Judaea  and 
in  any  other  land.  As  to  the  quantity,  it  is  at  least  one  of  sixty. 
(Chapters  Yad,  1-5.) 


Heaves  and  Tithes. 

( Maimuni  Yad.)  After  this,  the  owner  is  to  give  to  the  poor 
10  of  100  of  the  crops  as  the  tithe  of  the  poor.2  Hext,  one  of 
50  for  the  priests.  ISText,  10  of  100  for  the  Levites,  the  first  tithe. 
[Next,  10  of  100  as  the  second  tithe,  which  is  to  be  consumed  by 
the  owner  and  his  friends  in  Jerusalem.  The  tithe  10  of  100 
for  the  poor  takes  places  only  during  the  third  and  the  sixth 
years  of  each  seven  years’  cycle,  during  which  two  years  there 
is  no  second  tithe.  During  the  year  of  [Release,  the  entire  spon¬ 
taneous  harvest  is  free  to  all.  This  takes  place  in  Judaea  and  in 
the  countries  adjacent  upon  it.  There  the  first  tithe  for  the 
Levite,  and  the  second  tithe  for  the  poor  are  levied.  Of  the  first 
tithe,  again,  the  Levite  must  pay  his  2  of  100  to  the  priest 
(Ibid.,  Chapter  VI.) 

Benevolence  and  Alms  in  Talmud. 

(Ibid.,  VII,  1,  etc.)  It  is  a  positive  commandment  to  give 
alms  to  the  Jewish  poor,  male  and  female,  according  to  the 
means  of  the  donor,  since  it  is  written :  “Open,  indeed,  thy  hand 
to  him ;  encourage  the  stranger  and  thy  fellow-inhabitant.” 
(The  Rabbis  interpret  ger ,  stranger,  as  meaning  only  the 
proselyte,  in  full.)  Whosoever  sees  a  poor  man  begging  and 
closes  his  eyes  and  gives  him  no  alms,  has  committed  a  sin  of 
omission  You  are  bidden  to  spend  to  him  according  to  his 
needs,  in  clothes  and  furniture,  even  marriage.  If  such  a  man 
has  been  accustomed  to  ride  on  horseback,  with  a  servant  run¬ 
ning  before  him  and  has  now  become  poor,  he  must  be  provided 
with  that.  A  good  man  gives  in  alms  about  one-fifth  part  of  his 

'Dlbtr  ’3*H  'JSO 

2,jy  -itfyD  n»nn  ."JK’  *itryo  -ie'jjd 


50 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


income ;  one-tenth  is  middling ;  below  that  is  avaricious.  Even 
the  needy  one,  living  himself  on  alms,  shall  spend  to  other  poor. 
An  unknown  poor  asking  for  food  must  be  given  at  once  to  eat, 
without  any  further  questions.  If  he  asks  for  clothes  it  is  best 
to  see  whether  he  is  not  a  fraud ;  but  if  he  is  known  as  a  decent 
poor,  he  shall  be  clothed  at  once  becomingly,  without  further  in¬ 
quiry.  The  Gentile  poor  are  treated  the  same  as  the  Jewish 
ones,  for  the  sake  of  peace  and  humanity.  A  poor  man  who 
refuses  to  take  alms  shall  be  assisted  in  an  indirect  way,  as  a 
gift  or  a  loan.  Who  can  give  charity,  and  will  not,  the  Judge 
compels  him  to  do  so.  Orphans,  even  if  rich,  are  not  required 
to  give  charity ;  and  women  but  a  trifle.  A  poor  relative  comes 
first;  next  come  our  city  poor. — (Chap.  VIII.)  The  redemption 
of  prisoners  and  war  captives  comes  before  the  support  of  the 
poor.  It  is  the  noblest  charity.  Who  treats  such  with  indiffer¬ 
ence  has  transgressed  many  sins  of  omission.  A  female  poor 
comes  before  a  male  one ;  the  same,  a  female  captive.  A  maiden 
orphan  is  to  be  given  away  in  marriage.  Among  the  Greeks 
also  that  was  considered  a  great  charity  ( Cornel .  Nepos ,  Epami- 
nondas ).  The  learned  poor  or  captive  comes  before  the  ignorant 
one.  A  learned  bastard  conies  before  an  ignorant  high-priest. 
Among  many  scholars  the  greatest  one  has  the  preference. —  (IX 
Chapter).  Every  city  shall  appoint  its  charity  officers  ( Gabai ) 
to  collect  the  poor-rates  and  distribute  them  daily  or  weekly. 
On  fast-days  the  poor  shall  be  specially  remembered.  Some 
Rabbis  even  declared  this  to  be  the  best  part  of  the  fast. 

Maimonides,  Yad  Zeraim  on:  Heaves  and  Obi.ates 
(II.  Terumo). 

The  priestly  Heaves  and  the  Levitical  Tithes  are  levied  only 
in  the  Holy  Land,  according  to  the  Thora.  But  the  Prophets 
prescribed  it  also  for  Babylonia,  and  the  Sages  added  still  there¬ 
to  the  countries  of  Syria,  Egypt,  Amon  and  Moab,  all  close  to 
the  Jewish  country.  Every  kind  of  human  food,  owned  by 
somebody  and  growing  from  the  soil,  requires  the  priestly  heaves 
and  Levitical  tithes.  The  priestly  heave  is,  liberally  donated, 


HEAVES  AND  OBLATES. 


51 


one  in  forty,  and  the  least  is  one  in  sixty.  It  belongs  to  the 
priests  and  their  families  of  the  tribe  of  Ahron.  The  preference 
has  the  scholarly  priest  observing  the  Levitical  purity.1  (San¬ 
hedrin,  90b.) 

Treatise  Trumoth ,  Mishna  4,  3,  reads  somewhat  different 
from  the  above.  The  quantity  of  the  heave  is,  liberally  donated, 
amounting  to  one  of  forty.  The  Shamaites  say  one  of  thirty. 
The  medium  is  one  of  fifty ;  the  least  is  one  in  sixty. 

Tithes  ( Hilkhoth  Maaser). 

Tithes  belong  to  the  Levites.  After  the  Theruma  has  been 
heaved  away,  one  of  ten  is  raised  for  the  Levites  as  tithes,  or 
Maaser.  This  must  be  done  as  soon  as  the  grain  is  brought 
into  the  house  and  gathered  in  from  the  field.  As  long  as  these 
tithes  have  not  been  paid  the  grain  is  unfit  to  eat,  Tebel.  In  the 
times  of  Johanan,  the  high-priest,  after  Simon  the  Just,  the 
great  Sanhedrin  had  an  inquiry  made,  and  found  that  the  Jews 
are  conscientious  in  donating  the  priestly  heaves,  but  greatly 
neglecting  the  tithes,  the  first,  the  second  and  that  for  the  poor ; 
therefore,  they  determined  to  have  that  supervised  by  trustwor¬ 
thy  men.  The  common  people  were  not  trusted,  and  hence  their 
grain  was  termed  Demai  (doubtful).  We  repeat,  the  first  tithe 
was  1  of  10,  for  the  Levites ;  the  second  tithe  was  to  be  con¬ 
sumed  by  the  owner  and  his  friends  in  Jerusalem;  and  the  poor 
tithe  was  but  twice  in  the  seven  years’  cycle  (TV.  Masroth , 
Mishna  VII,  1).  Tithed  must  be  every  eatable  thing,  owned  by 
somebody  (not  free),  growing  from  the  ground.2  Of  vegetables 
only  the  better  kinds  were  tithed ;  the  meaner  not. 

Maimonid.  Yad,  Zeraim.  On  Second  Tithes  and  Fourth 
Years'  Fruits. 

(1)  After  the  first  tithe  has  been  put  away  comes  the  second 
tithe  and  the  tithe  for  the  poor.  This  poor-tithe  is  due  on  the 

*?pxn  oy  jmb  norm  D’jnu  jw 

Sanhedrin  90,  b.  :  nun»  lb  }'N  p'tno  1JW1  ,mJW0  lb  B”  miP13  pqnon  33 

J.nri3’yo3  3,,n  pan  jnbui  "idb'J'i  bsiN  ba 


52 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


third  and  on  the  sixth  year  of  each  cycle,  in  place  of  the  second 
tithe,  which  is  then  omitted.  On  the  first  of  Tishri  is  the  begin¬ 
ning  of  the  year  to  give  the  tithes  of  grain,  fruits  and  vegetables, 
and  the  15th  of  Schebat  (about  February)  is  new-year  for  the 
fruit  of  trees.  (2)  The  second  tithe  is  consumed  within  the 
walls  of  Jerusalem,  as  long  as  the  Sanctuary  existed.  The  con¬ 
sumers  must  be  Levitically  clean.  An  ignoramus  (Am  Harez ) 
shall  not  eat  of  it,  just  as  the  first  tithe  and  the  priestly  heave. 

Neta  Rebai. 

In  Levit.,  19.23,  we  read:  When  you  plant  any  fruit  tree, 
then  shall  you  count  its  fruit  during  the  first  three  years  as  un¬ 
circumcised  (unfit  to  enjoy)  ;  it  shall  not  be  eaten.  But  in  the 
fourth  year  shall  all  its  fruit  be  holy,  a  thanksgiving  to  the  Lord. 
And  in  the  fifth  year  ye  shall  eat  of  it  .  .  .  The  fruit  of 

the  fourth  year,  the  Talmud  terms,  specifically,  N eta-rebai ;  it  is 
holy  and  must  be  entirely  consumed  in  Jerusalem  by  its  owners, 
as  the  second  tithe  is. —  (Tv.  Maasser-Slieni,  Mishna, 3,  1)  :  “Ho 
one  shall  propose  to  his  neighbor:  Take  these  fruits  to  Jerusa¬ 
lem  and  we  shall  divide  there  (that  is  mercenary).  But  he  may 
say :  Let  us  bring  our  fruit  there  and  we  shall  eat  there  in  com¬ 
pany,”  presenting  each  other  with  such  fruit1  (in  token  of  con¬ 
viviality  and  mutual  courtesy).  The  intent  was  to  bring  the  fel¬ 
low-citizens  frequently  together  in  the  capital,  make  them  feel 
and  act  as  countrymen,  and  thus  foster  patriotism  and  good-fel¬ 
lowship.  Our  American  picnics  are  derived  from  that  Judaean 
custom. 

Maimonid.  Yad,  Zeraim,  Hilkot  Bikurim.  The  First 
Fruits  (I-V.) 

The  firstlings  of  the  crops,  man  and  beast,  are  put  aside 
for  the  priests  ministering  in  the  Sanctuary,  viz,  part  of  the 
dough  made  up  for  bread,  parts  of  the  slaughtered  animals,  of 

hppmr  nwan  nx  nvih  ronp  ms  -idn"  np 
Din  niino  n6  nr  D'lnu  ,d^65TP3  d^dnik' 


THE  FIRST  FRUITS. 


53 


the  shorn  (lamb)  wool,  a  redemption  for  the  first-born  sons,  and 
for  the  first-born  unclean  brutes,  24  gifts  in  all,  are  donated 
to  the  priests  as  the  portion  of  the  Aronidai,  all  expressly  men¬ 
tioned  in  the  Thora.  Eight  of  these  gifts  are  consumed  by 
the  priests  within  the  court  of  the  Temple;  5  within  the  walls 
of  Jerusalem;  5  gifts  within  the  boundaries  of  the  Holy  Land; 
5  gifts  in  and  out  of  the  Holy  Land ;  and  1  donation  is  received 
from  the  Temple.  The  first  8  gifts  are  most  holy  and  must  be 
consumed  by  the  males  only,  within  the  sanctuary,  as  parts  of 
the  different  sacrifices  and  offerings  to  the  Temple ;  5  are  holy, 
and  consumed  within  Jerusalem  by  the  males  (and  females, 
too?),  derived  from  other  offerings  of  a  second  degree  of  holi¬ 
ness  ;  5  gifts  to  be  consumed  within  the  Holy  Land  are  the 
Heave,  the  heave  of  the  tithes,  of  the  dough,  of  cattle  and  of 
wool ;  all  of  a  third  degree  of  holiness,  destined  for  males  and 
females;  5  gifts  which  the  priests  enjoy  in  and  out  of  the  Lloly 
Land  are  the  gifts  of  redemption  of  a  first-born  son,  the  first¬ 
born  of  an  ass,  the  inheritance  of  a  proselyte  and  herem,  banned 
goods.  The  gift  from  the  Sanctuary  are  the  skins- of  the  animal 
sacrifices. 

(10)  The  firstlings  of  the  ripening  fruit  shall  he  brought  to 
the  Sanctuary,  as  written  expressly  (II  M.,  23.19),  during  the 
existence  of  the  Sanctuary  in  the  Holy  Land ;  also  in  Syria. 
These  firstlings  are  to  be  given  from  wheat,  barley,  grapes,  figs, 
pomegranates,  olives  and  dates. 

(17)  One  of  sixty  is  the  rabbinically  fixed  quantity.  These 
firstlings  are  also  called  heaves — terume.  V  M.,  26.1-11,  brings 
the  ritual  and  a  most  touching  prayer  which  the  farmer  used 
to  deliver  in  the  Temple  when  he  offered  these  firstlings  (V  M., 
26.5)  :  “A  wandering  Aramean  was  my  ancestor;  he  emigrated 
into  Egypt  and  became  there  a  mighty  people.  But  soon  the 
Egyptians  abused  us  and  oppressed  us,  and  imposed  upon  us 
very  hard  work.  So  we  cried  to  our  God,  and  He  listened  to 
our  cry  and  brought  us  forth  from  that  land  with  a  mighty 
arm  and  with  wonderful  prowess ;  and  brought  us  to  this  coun¬ 
try,  flowing  with  milk  and  honey.  And  now  I  came  and  brought 


54  HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 

these  firstlings  of  the  land  which  Ihvh  has  given  me.”  He  left 
the  basket  with  the  fruit  at  the  altar,  bowed  deeply,  retired  and 
rejoiced  over  all  the  good  things  which  God  has  granted  him; 
he,  his  family,  the  Levite  and  the  stranger.  When  the  farmer 
arrived  at  the  holy  mount  he  took  his  fruit  basket  upon  his 
shoulders,  even  the  King  himself  did  so,  ascended  into  the 
aula,  and  with  the  basket  upon  his  shoulder,  he  pronounced  the 
above  prayer  in  Hebrew.  A  most  touching  ceremony,  indeed,  it 
was ;  whilst  the  Levites  sang  the  hymns  of  Ps.  30.2 :  “I  exalt 
thee,  O  Ihvh,  who  hast  uplifted  me.”  The  farmer  passed  there 
the  day  and  the  night  and  then  returned  home. 

( Hala )  Oblation  of  the  Dough. 

(Ibid.,  V,  1-5.)  IV  M.,  15.20,  ordains  to  give  to  the  priest 
the  firstlings  of  the  dough.  That  is  rabbinically  determined  to 
be  about  4  of  100  of  the  family  dough  made  up  for  bread.  Ac¬ 
cording  to  the  Thora,  only  in  the  Holy  Land  is  this  duty  incum¬ 
bent.  How  it  is  only  rabbinical  and  usually  burnt  in  the  fire, 
there  being  no  priest.  (VII,  1)  :  Whosoever  slaughters  an  ani¬ 
mal  shall  give  to  the  priest  the  firstlings,  cheek-bones  and  stom¬ 
ach1  (X,  1).  These  are  the  priestly  gifts.  Further,  he  re¬ 
ceives  the  firstlings  of  the  shearing  of  the  wool  of  the  sheep,  at 
least  one-sixteenth  part.  (XI,  1)  Also  it  is  a  duty  that  every 
Israelite  in  and  out  of  the  Holy  Land  shall  redeem  his  son,  the 
first-born,  of  his  Jewish  wife,  according  to  Scripture  (II  M., 
13,2,3;  22.28;  34,  22). —  (15)  The  father  brings  the  son  to  the 
priest,  pronounces  a  benediction  and  hands  the  redemption 
money  to  the  priest,  the  sum  of  5  Sela  (about  $3). —  (12)  It  is 
again  a  duty  to  redeem  with  a  lamb  the  first-born  of  an  ass.  This 
is  valid  in  and  out  of  the  Holy  Land. 

Thus  we  find  that  rather  heavy  charitable  burdens  were  im¬ 
posed  upon  the  Israelite  by  way  of  gifts  and  donations  from  the 
crops  and  the  flocks,  as  legal  dues,  besides  free  alms  to  the  poor, 
further  as  donations  to  the  priests  and  the  Levites.  Here  also 
patriotic  conviviality  is  aimed  at.  Next  comes  the  first  part  from 


'n:rpm  D”r6  ,ynr  un  rpB>K*i 


BENEVOLENCE  TO  STItANGEBS  ;  CANAANITES. 


55 


the  dough,  from  the  slaughtered  animals,  the  shearing  of  the 
sheep,  redemption  of  the  first-born  son,  and  of  the  first-born  ass, 
etc.  And  these  were  not  simple  recommendations,  rules  of  de¬ 
sirable  free  charities.  No ;  they  were  laws,  commandments, 
dues,  ordained  by  God  and  enforced  by  the  State,  whose  trans¬ 
gression  was  punished  with  39  stripes,  and  the  blessings  of  God 
invoked  upon  their  fulfillment.  Such  charity,  sympathy  and 
solidarity  no  ancient  society  and  religion,  not  even  Egypt  and 
Babylonia,  can  boast  of — all  this  in  the  name  of  Judaean  Mono¬ 
theism. 

Benevolence  to  Strangers  ;  Canaanites. 

We  have  treated  of  the  legal  and  the  benevolent  laws  for 
priests,  Levites,  the  poor,  etc.  No  less  anxious  is  the  Mosaic 
Law  for  kindness  and  fairness  towards  the  stranger.  Hundreds 
of  times  is  he  recommended  to  the  protection,  the  consideration, 
the  benefaction  of  the  Israelite  and  placed  under  the  sacred  aegis 
of  the  law.  “One  law  there  shall  be  for  the  indigenous  and  for 
the  stranger  among  you  (II  M.,  12.19)  ;  ye  shall  love  the  stran¬ 
ger,  for  such  you  were  in  Egypt  (V  M.,  10.19)  ;  the  stranger 
thou  shalt  not  over-reach  nor  oppress,  for  strangers  you  were  in 
Egypt  (II  M.,  22.20)  ;  you  should  know  the  feelings  of  the 
stranger  (and  sympathize  with  him)  (II  M.,  23.9)  ;  God  is  the 
guardian  of  the  strangers  (Ps.,  146.9).”  No  doubt,  we  find 
among  the  ancients  the  Deity  designated  as  avenger  and  pro¬ 
tector  of  the  stranger.  Sympathy  is  human,  not  national,  per¬ 
vading  all  countries,  ages,  races  and  creeds.  God  is  often 
termed  Zeus  Xenios,  and  frequenty  alluded  to  as  such,  especially 
in  Homer  (Homer’s  Odyssea,  VI,  207)  :  “For  under  Zeos’  pro¬ 
tection  are  all  the  strangers  and  beggars.  The  gift  is  small,  still 
it  is  lovely.  Well,  then,  you  good  maidens,  give  the  stranger  food 
and  drink  and  have  him  bathe  in  the  river”  .  .  .  Again 
we  read  there  (VII,  159)  :  “O  Alkinoos,  it  does  not  become 
thee,  nor  is  it  fair,  that  a  stranger  sit  at  the  hearth  in  the  ashes. 
Please  have  the  stranger  rise  and  take  a  seat  upon  a  silver  arm¬ 
chair.  Then  command  the  heralds  to  mix  again  the  wine,  that 
we  may  make  a  libation  to  the  thunder-rejoicing  Zeus,  who 


56 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


shields  the  respectable,  protection-needing  strangers.  Then  let 
the  waitress  offer  to  the  guest  from  our  house-provisions.”  Simi¬ 
lar  tokens  of  kindness  we  find  there  (VII,  181),  and  in  many 
places  more  in  Homer  and  other  Greek  writers.1 

But  in  Mosaism  the  duty  towards  strangers  is  most  salient, 
actually  pervading  and  permeating  its  legislation  as  air  and 
light  are  in  the  space  of  the  universe.  There  alone,  the  Ger,  the 
Gentile  stranger,  casting  his  lot  with  and  seeking  protection 
with  and  under  the  Mosaic  Law,  is  ever  and  always  put  on  a 
par  with  the  Jewish  poor,  orphan  and  widow,  in  hundreds  of 
positive  verses,  and  the  rabbis  have  mostly  continued  in  that 
polity.  Whilst  among  the  other  nations,  in  fact  and  in  reality, 
not  in  poetry,  a  stranger  was  an  enemy,  beneath  the  Law,  the 
prey  and  booty  of  the  first  comer ;  if  weak,  poor,  homeless  or 
stranded  he  was  enslaved  and  generally  without  any  rights  what¬ 
soever.  And  that  is  not  today  fully  righted.  Everywhere  the 
stranger  is  taken  advantage  of,  to  say  the  least,  and  such  selfish¬ 
ness  is  dubbed  as  patriotism !  Today  Anti-Semitism  is  fain  to 
decry  the  Jew,  living  in  Europe  longer  than  most  other  races, 
nearly  for  2,000  years,  and  participating  in  all  the  burdens  and 
labors  of  the  country.  It  depicts,  decries  and  stamps  him  an 
alien,  and  not  entitled  to  any  rights.  Leviticus,  19.1,  includes 
him  in  its  highest  ideal:  “Ye  shall  be  holy,  for  holy  I  am,  your 

iGod  is  often  termed  Zeus  Xenios  and  frequently  alluded  to  in  Homer. 
Odyssea,  VI,  207 : 

Pros  gar  Dios  eisin  apantes 

Xeinoi  te  ptochoi  te,  dosis  d'  olige  te  file  te. 

Alla  dot’,  ainpliipoloi,  xeino  browsin  te,  posin  te 
Lousate  t’  eu  potamo,  oth’  epi  skepas  est'  anemoio  .  .  . 

VII,  159 : 

Allcino’,  on  men  toi  tode  kallion  oude  eoiken, 

Xeinon  men  chamai  estai  ep’  esekare  eu  koniesin  .  .  . 

All  'age  de  xeinon  men  epi  tlironou  argyroelou 
Eison  anastesas,  sy  de  Kerykessi  keleuson  oinon  epikresai  ina 
kai  Dli.  Terpikerauno  speisoruen 
osth’  iketesin  am  aidoioisin  opedei  .  .  . 

The  same  there,  VII,  182. 


TOLERATION  AND  CANAANITES. 


57 


God,”  enumerating  the  great  human  duties  it  winds  up  with: 
“Thou  shalt  love  thy  fellow-man  as  thyself and,  continuing 
the  theme,  the  Lawgiver  says:  “When  a  stranger  lives  in  your 
country,  ye  shall  not  vex  nor  press  him,  treat  him  as  a  fellow-cit¬ 
izen;  indeed,  thou  shalt  love  him  as  thyself,  for  strangers  ye 
were  in  Egypt.”  (Levit.,  19.2-18.33.) 


Toleration  and  Canaanites. 

“Holy  shall  ye  be,  for  holy  am  I,  your  God.  .  .  .  Re¬ 

member  the  poor.  Love  thy  fellow-man.  Love  thy  stranger  as 
ihvself.”  Muster  all  the  entire  ancient  literatures  and  positive 
legislations,  you  will  nowhere  find  such  broadly  humanitarian 
verses ;  not  in  Manu,  Menes,  Solon,  Lycurgus,  Hammurabi,  XII 
Tables,  Codes  of  Justinian,  of  Charlemagne,  or  Napoleon.  Here 
is  the  criterion  and  proof  divine  of  its  inspiration.  This  is  Mo¬ 
saic  doctrine,  subsuming  in  a  few  verses  all  man’s  altruistic  du¬ 
ties  and  all  human  holiness.  When  a  heathen  desired  to  com¬ 
press  into  one  sentence  the  contents  of  all  the  Thora,  Hillel  the 
elder  pointed  to  that  very  verse.  Jesus  taught:  “Love  thy  en¬ 
emy.”  Buddha  inclined  also  in  that  exaggerated  direction.  So 
did  Spinoza,  too,  because  all  these  teachers  were  disenchanted. 
So  they  sacrificed  the  actual  world  for  a  Utopia;  all  aspired  to 
improve  the  world  by  the  “Kingdom  of  Heaven.”  That  kingdom 
of  heaven,  alas !  is  still  in  heaven,  and  God  alone  knows  when  it 
will  be  on  earth.  Many  a  millennium  may  yet  pass.  The 
masses  move  still  very  slowly  and  human  nature  is  still  selfish 
and  shortsighted,  “still  subject  to  error,  given  to  assinitv,”  ac¬ 
cording  to  certain  philosophers.1 

God’s  kingdom  was  the  ideal  of  all  times,  aspired  to  by  Gen¬ 
tile  and  Jew.  You  also  find  it  in  the  Jewish  daily  adoration 
prayer,  Oleinu,  by  Rab  (III.  Century  post  C.).  It  reads :  “There¬ 
fore  we  hope  to  thee  .  .  .  soon  to  see  Thy  glorious  all-power 

cause  all  forms  of  idol-worship  to  disappear,  and  to  improve  the 
world  by  the  kingdom  of  God.”2  .  .  .  The  kingdom  of  God 

'Malebranches  said  :  “L’erreur  est  la  cause  de  la  misere  des  hommes.’ 
Montaigne  said  :  “  Tout  vice  vient  de  l’anerie.” 

mataa  nbw  ;pnb 


58 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


with  universal  self-sacrifice  is  a  lovely  Utopia,  and  perhaps  even 
not  altogether  desirable,  as  expressed  by  Buddha,  Jesus  and 
Spinoza.  While  sober  Mosaism  is  not  given  to  Utopias  and  im¬ 
possible  ideals.  Realistic  Mosaism  teaches  but :  Love  thy  neigh¬ 
bor  as  thyself. 

Or  is  it  true,  what  jSTihilism  and  Anti-Semitism  claim,  that 
the  Bible  with  Judaism  are  entertaining  malevolence  and  preju¬ 
dice  against  any  other  sect  or  race,  except  their  own  ?  Is  it  true 
that  “Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself/’  applies  not  to 
man  generally,  but  exclusively  to  the  Jew?  Our  present  Bib¬ 
lical  studies  show  this  to  be  a  calumny.  The  Sacred  Writ,  form¬ 
ally,  is  no  doubt  national,  sectarian,  Judaeic;  but,  in  essence,  it 
is  broadly  humanitarian.  But  did  not  Mosaism  proscribe  the 
Canaanites,  the  aborigines  of  Judaea  ?  It  did  so,  not  on  account 
of  their  foreign  birth  and  creed,  but  because  of  their  abomina¬ 
tions,  their  unnatural  vices,  their  rottenness,  in  body  and  in 
mind.  Remember  their  gods  and  goddesses,  Baal  and  Moloch, 
requiring  the  ghastly  burnt-offerings  of  men  and  children.  Think 
of  Peor,  Ishtar,  Astaroth  and  Apis,  with  licentiousness  as  their 
divine  worship.  Our  Lawgiver  had  to  erect  his  cordon  of  quar¬ 
antine  against  contagion,  against  those  corrupt  Greek,  Egyptian, 
Phoenician  and  Babylonian  cults  and  immoral,  sensuous  civiliza¬ 
tions.  It  was  dictated  by  self-preservation.  Samson  had  his 
Delilah,  and  came  to  grief  for  it.  The  Qanite,  heroic  Jael,  and 
the  Moabite,  suave,  humble  and  pious  Ruth,  were  not  of  the 
country  and  race  of  Israel ;  nevertheless,  the  Bible  approves  of 
them ;  yea,  adopts  and  glorifies  them ;  whilst  the  treacherous  De¬ 
lilah,  Athalia,  Jezebel,  all  are  held  up  to  contempt.  The  differ¬ 
ence  between  them  was  not  in  country,  race  and  creed,  but  in 
character  and  personal  virtue. 

Edom — Rome,  Thy*  Brother. 

Let  us  quote  pregnant  texts  in  corroboration  of  our  theme, 
and  elucidate  the  sense:  “A  stranger  thou  shalt  not  aggrieve  or 
press,  for  strangers  ye  were  in  Egypt “A  stranger  thou  shalt 
not  oppress,  for  ye  should  know  his  mind,  ye  were  strangers  in 


EDOM - ROME,  THY  BROTHER. 


59 


Egypt;”  “On  the  seventh  day  thou  shalt  rest  and  let  rest  thy 
slave  and  stranger”  (II  M.,  22.19;  23.9;  23.12).  Does  that 
sound  like  foreigner  hatred,  or  rather  thrilling  sympathy  with 
suffering  fellow-man  ?  (V  M.,  23.8)  :  “Thou  shalt  not  hate  an 
Edomite,  for  he  is  thy  brother ;  thou  shalt  not  hate  an  Egyptian, 
for  a  stranger  thou  hast  been  in  his  land.” — Curious !  Egypt 
is  remembered  hundreds  of  times  with  so  much  placability ! 
Egypt,  saved  by  a  Hebraic  Vizier,  giving  his  clan  hospitality 
and  soon  turning  the  hospitality  into  bondage,  handling  it  with 
the  scourge  for  building  her  fortresses,  throwing  its  babes  into 
the  Nile,  the  Midrash  claiming  even  its  children  used  as  bricks 
in  the  walls — this  Egypt  is  remembered  only  for  good !  Still 
more  wonderful  is  the  placability  towards  Edom.  Edom,  Is¬ 
rael’s  millenial  foe,  and  the  Egyptian,  his  cruel  slavemaster,  are 
termed  brothers,  and  hatred  towards  them  is  deprecated  by  di¬ 
vine  Commandment,  and  the  Rabbis  counting  it  among  the  613 
Commandments  ( Maimonides ,  Yad,  Mada,  Introduction)  of  the 
Thora.  Let  us  dwell  some  time  on  this  pregnant  verse:  “Thou 
shalt  not  hate  an  Edomite,  for  he  is  thy  brother.”  What 
a  noble  placability!  What  a  broad  magnanimity!  Consider 
what  a  gloomy,  painful  tableau  does  not  the  word  Edom  conjure 
up  before  a  Jewish  mind  and  vision!  What  sighs,  tears  and 
blood  does  not  that  single  word  compress!  All  Judah’s  millen¬ 
nial  martyrdom  looms  up  as  the  prophetic  ghost  of  En-dor,  at  the 
spell  of  Edom ,  since  the  Patriarchs  to  our  own  times!  Never¬ 
theless,  the  Sacred  Writer  calls  him  “brother!”  Edom  is  the  by¬ 
name  of  Esau,  Edom-Esau,  the  brother  of  J acob-Israel.  Remem¬ 
ber  the  gloomy  legends  of  strife  at  their  very  first  stage  of 
embryonic  existence ;  strife  at  the  threshold  of  life ;  strife  for 
the  birthright ;  strife  as  distinct  heads  of  clans,  and  strife  as 
diverse  peoples,  civilizations  and  doctrines,  to  this  day !  The 
Maceabean  heroes  believed  to  have  extinguished  that  feud — in 
vain !  The  Herodians  were  Idumeans,  and  rose  upon  the  ruins 
of  the  Hasmoneans.  The  Herodians  later,  as  the  satellites  of  the 
Caesars,  entailed  the  name  of  Edom  upon  ancient  Rome.  Rome 
is  termed  Edom  in  Jewish  legendary  and  Midrashim.  That 


60 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


name  is  the  dismal  Elias-cloak  which  the  bloody  Herodians 
dropped  upon  the  shoulders  of  the  yet  bloodier  Caesars.  Edom, 
the  legend  leads  back  to  red1  blood ;  the  cruel  Idumeans  were 
the  forerunners  of  the  cruel  Caesars  and  of  Mediaeval  cruel 
Rome,  the  authoress  of  the  cruel  Crusades  and  of  the  Ghetto. 
Storms  of  sighs,  rivers  of  tears  and  oceans  of  blood  are  evoked 
by  the  spell  of  Edom-Rome;  Jerusalem  was  in  ashes,  but  seemed 
to  resurrect  and  be  regenerated  in  Rome.  Was  now  peace  ?  Was 
now  the  feud  between  the  twin  brothers  settled  ?  Hot  by  far ! 
Patrician  and  imperial  Rome  was  conquered,  but  hierarchical 
Rome  sprang  up,  bitterer  than  ever,  and  the  feud  between  Israel 
and  Edom  raged  on,  on  to  our  own  present  days ;  Anti-Semitism 
is  the  youngest  offshoot  of  old  ruthless  Edom.  How,  these 
bitter  and  sad  facts,  this  solemn  and  bloody  tragedy  before  his 
mental  eye,  embracing  the  world  of  space  and  millennia  of. 
history,  the  Biblical  composer  sits  down  and  writes :  “Thou 
shalt  not  hate  an  Edomite;  he  is  thy  brother.”  Can  anyone  still 
say,  Israel  is  implacable  and  entertains  but  race  prejudice? 

Humanity  in  Synagogue  and  in  Church. 

Let  us  contrast  the  humanity  of  the  later  Synagogue,  the 
Hebraic  Church,  and  that  of  other  creeds.  The  Mosaic  doctrine 
is:  “One  law  there  shall  be  for  you  and  for  the  stranger”  (IV 
M.,  15.16).  “The  stranger  thou  shalt  not  vex  or  oppress,  for 
ye  were  strangers  in  Egypt,”  is  frequently  repeated.  The  Edom¬ 
ite  and  the  Egyptian  are  brothers,  and  their  descendants  are  ad¬ 
missible  into  Israel’s  Congregation.  “The  (Hon-Hebrew)  slave 
fleeing  from  his  master,  shall  be  not  only  not  extradited,  but  act¬ 
ively  sheltered,  befriended  and  protected”  (V  M.,  23.16).  The 
non-Jew,  when  impoverished,  shall  be  encouraged  and  no  inter¬ 
est  taken  of  him  (III  M.,  25.35).  “Thou  shalt  rise  before  a 
gray  head,”  (III  M.,  19.32),  expounded  the  Rabbis,  “before  a 
Gentile,  too.”  The  thousand  injunctions  for  gifts  to  the  poor, 
declares  the  Talmud,  applies  to  Gentile  poor,  too  (see  above  on 
poor-laws).  The  duty  of  politeness,  urbanity,  veracity,  strict 

'ntn  DHNn  Dmn  JD  (Genesis)  m  ,DHX 


HUMANITY  IN  SYNAGOGUE  AND  IN  CHURCH. 


61 


honesty  is  especially  enjoined  towards  the  non-Jew  (Agada). 
“The  virtuous  among  the  Gentiles  will  participate  in  eternal 
life,”  is  Rabbinical  dictum.  Paradise  is  no  privileged  place. 
Gentile  sages  are  everywhere  respectfully  mentioned ;  their 
virtues  are  not  “shining  vices”  in  the  Talmud,  as  they  are  termed 
by  the  Church  Fathers.  Thus  Judaism  discriminates  against 
no  creed  or  race  in  regard  to  civic  rights,  to  human  rights,  to 
benevolence,  sympathy,  charity  and  the  hope  of  eternal  beati¬ 
tude.  Right  and  good  standing  depend  not  upon  official  creed 
or  birth,  but  upon  deed  and  personal  merit.  A  ith  all  its  aus¬ 
terity  of  discipline  and  interminable  sectarian  ceremonies,  the 
Jewish  Church  is  tolerant.  It  has  never  taken  a  single  mans 
life  or  confiscated  an  estate  on  account  of  heresy.  The  Penta¬ 
teuch  ordains,  in  cases  of  active  idolatry  by  an  individual  or  an 
entire  community  (V  M.,  13.10  and  16),  that  such  shall  be 
put  to  death  (or  banned — herein ),  they  and  all  their  goods  de¬ 
stroyed  and  extirpated,  root  and  stem.  But  the  Talmud  miti¬ 
gated  and  hedged  in  the  severity  with  such  an  array  of  require¬ 
ments,  witnesses,  warnings  and  detail  of  circumstances,  follow¬ 
ing  up  the  letter  of  the  law,  that  it  is  simply  impossible  ever  to 
inflict  that  punishment  of  the  Ban.  Such  an  archaic  Statute  re¬ 
mained  therefore  a  simple  admonition,  good  to  deter  from  apos¬ 
tasy  ;  not  to  be  abused  by  cunning  priests  for  the  destruction  of 
innocent  people  who  differ  in  their  opinions  or  in  their  interests 
from  the  established  church.  The  condemnation  of  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  for  heresy  by  the  Sanhedrin  is  a  fiction,  a  legal  impos¬ 
sibility.  His  crucifixion  was  concocted  by  the  Herodians  and 
the  Roman  Procurator.  The  Gospels  allude  to  the  fact  that  then 
the  Jews  had  no  longer  any  capital  jurisdiction.  According  to 
the  Talmud,  only  a  free  Sanhedrin  can  decree  capital  punish¬ 
ment. 

Now,  contrast  with  that  the  doctrines  of  the  hierarchs :  “All 
those  out  of  their  own  pale  must  go  to  hell  forever  and  ever. 
Abraham,  Zoroaster,  Lao-Tze,  Socrates,  Buddha,  can  expect  no 
better  treatment  at  their  hands.  All  men,  by  the  hundreds  of 
millions,  who  lived  before  their  churches  came  into  existence,  are 


62  HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 

doomed  to  everlasting  fires.  None  can  escape  except  those 
passing  their  narrow  door !  Remember  their  religious  wars, 
their  funeral  pyres,  crucifixions,  their  extirpation  of  sectarian 
antagonists ;  Charlemagne  offering  the  Saxons  his  creed,  or 
drowning  in  the  Vistula;  the  Gothic  fanatical  rigors  in  Spain; 
the  Albigenses,  ruthlessly  extirpated  by  Montfort,  abetted  by 
Rome;  the  175  years’  lasting  eight  bloody  Crusades,  costing  Eu¬ 
rope  alone  two  millions  of  soldiers ;  the  expulsion  of  the  Moors 
and  of  the  Jews  from  Spain;  the  wars  of  the  Reformation  in 
England,  Germany,  the  Netherlands,  Bohemia,  France  and  Eng¬ 
land,  for  two  centuries  converting  Europe  into  a  slaughterhouse  ; 
the  French  Bartholomew’s  night;  the  hundred  thousand  auto-da- 
fes  of  Moors,  Jews  and  Protestants  in  Spain,  Italy  and  the 
Netherlands ;  the  treatment  of  Dissenters  in  England  and  of 
Quakers  and  witches  in  America.  Compare  that  with  the  Syna¬ 
gogue,  and  say  whether  it  is  wise  on  the  part  of  hierarchs  and 
xCnti-Semites  to  reproach  Judaism  with  intolerance  of  race  and 
creed  ?  whether  people  living  in  a  glass  house  should  throw  stones 
upon  their  peaceful  neighbors  ? 

Usuryt  and  Interest. 

But  V  M.,  23.21,  states1:  “Take  interest  of  the  stranger,  not 
of  thy  brother.”  Is  that  not  discrimination,  foreigner-hatred, 
usury  and  intolerance  ?  This  and  kindred  verses  have  been  fre¬ 
quently  urged  against  Mosaism  and  the  Jews  in  general.  It  has 
been  a  fruitful  theme  of  reproach  and  vituperation;  yea,  of  bit¬ 
ter  persecution  and  bloodshed.  But  neither  etymologically,  exe- 
geticallv  or  historically,  it  is  well  taken.  The  real  sense  is :  “Of 
the  stranger  (the  non-Judsean,  not  the  non-Jew)  thou  mayest 
(not  shalt)  take  interest,  not  of  the  native.”  The  discrimination 
is  not  against  the  non-Jew,  but  against  the  foreigner;  it  is  not  a 
sectarian  but  a  commei’cial  consideration,  as  we  shall  see.  The 
misunderstanding  originated  in  the  fact  that  the  verse  was  taken 
out  of  its  context,  and  not  considered  in  connection  with  the  his¬ 
torical  circumstances  and  surroundings.  It  reads  (V  M.,  23.20 


*TC’n 


USURY  AND  INTEREST. 


63 


and  21)  :  “Thou  shalt  take  no  interest,  or  usury,  of  thy  brother; 
interest  of  money,  or  of  eatables,  or  of  any  other  thing  lent  on 
interest.  Of  the  alien  thou  mayest  take  interest;  not  of  thy 
brother;  that  the  Lord  may  bless  thee.”  Again  we  read  in 
III  M.,  25.35-38 :  “When  thy  brother  will  grow  poor  and  de¬ 
cline  in  his  fortunes,  thou  shalt  assist  him,  be  he  a  stranger  or 
inhabitant ;  let  him  live  with  thee.  Thou  shalt  take  of  him  no 
interest1  or  any  kind  of  profit ;  fear  thy  God  and  let  thy  brother 
live  with  thee.  Thy  money  thou  shalt  not  give  him  on  interest, 
nor  thy  eatables  on  profit,  for  I,  Ihvh  your  God,  have  brought 
you  out  of  Egypt  and  given  to  (all  of)  you  the  Land  of 
Canaan.”  Let  us  further  quote  these  cognate  verses,  all 
helping  to  elucidate  the  correct  sense  of  the  Lawgiver.  (V  M., 
24.10-14)  :  “When  thou  lendest  some  loan  to  thy  neighbor, 
do  not  go  into  his  house  to  fetch  his  pledge,  but  remain  outside 
of  his  house  and  he  shall  bring  thee  out  the  pledge 
And  if  he  be  poor,  beware  not  to  go  to  sleep  holding  (with  thee) 
the  pawn,  but  return  it  to  him  at  sunset  .  .  .  that  God 

may  bless  thee  and  account  it  as  a  righteousness.”  In  these 
passages  the  Law  forbids  all  and  any  interest,  usury  or  profit 
upon  money  or  goods.  Here  is  not  the  question  of  business,  com¬ 
mercial  or  industrial,  in  goods  or  money  speculations.  Ho;  the 
legislator  has  here  in  view  his  own  people  and  his  own  times ; 
viz,  a  nation  of  farmers  and  cattle-breeders,  humble  and  labor¬ 
ious,  without  large  industries  and  commerce;  cultivating  their 
own  family-acre  as  their  unique  resource.  How  come  drought, 
or  flood,  locusts,  frost  or  hail-storm,  and  the  crop  is  destroyed ; 
or  sickness,  war  and  captivity,  and  the  farmer  with  his  family 
are  ruined  and  on  the  brink  of  starvation.  Then  the  pater  fa- 
milias  comes  to  borrow,  and  the  Law  bids:  “Thou  shalt  take  no 
interest  or  profit  of  thy  starving  neighbor,  but  encourage  him, 
that  he  be  enabled  to  live  with  thee  .  .  .  be  he  a  fellow- 

citizen,  stranger  or  resident.”  Here,  when  the  man  borrows,  in 

interest  or  usury  means  simply  profit  for  usage  of  money  or  goods — 
anything  above  the  capital  loaned.  It  is  but  later  that  these  terms  were 
differentiated. 


64 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


distress,  not  for  speculation  and  profit,  the  Law  expressly  and 
emphatically  makes  no  discrimination  between  native  and  stran¬ 
ger,  Jew  and  Gentile.  The  same  humanity  is  due  to  all.  But 
Judsea  was  adjacent  to  Phoenicia,  Mesopotamia,  Egypt,  etc.,  all 
highly  industrial  and  commercial  countries ;  when  they  came  to 
J udsea  to  borrow,  that  was  for  the  sake  of  speculation  and  profit ; 
hence  such  a  trading,  foreign  borrower,  not  a  poor  Gentile,  but 
an  alien  merchant,  a  speculator,  in  money  or  goods,  he  could  and 
should,  in  all  justice  and  fairness,  pay  interest  on  his  loan; 
therefore  it  states :  Thou  canst  take  interest  of  him,  make  profit 
on  him;  he  (the  foreign  merchant)  can  and  will  allow  you  inter¬ 
est  for  using  your  money.  Is  here  not  a  perfect  accord  of  altru¬ 
ism  with  egoism  ?  Is  not  money  a  necessary  element  of  specula¬ 
tion  and  profit,  and  should  the  lender  not  have  a  share  in  it  ? 
Of  course  he  should,  and  that  is  the  sense  of  the  verse ;  not  at  all 
discriminating  between  Jew  and  non- Jew,  hut  between  a  poor 
borrower  and  a  foreign  speculator. 

How,  compare  this  arrangement  with  the  Egyptian,  Roman  or 
Greek  conditions  and  communities.  Here,  we  have  above  seen, 
were  two  classes,  one  exorbitantly  powerful  and  rich,  the  other 
wretchedly  poor  and  weak ;  hereditarily  wealthy  and  chronic 
paupers,  born  aristocrats  and  plebeians ;  the  one  class  was  ever, 
as  a  rule,  lending ;  the  other  habitually  borrowing.  The  interest 
was  usurious  and  crushing;  the  privileges  of  the  money-lender 
boundless;  the  debtor  was  kept  under  the  heel  of  his  creditor. 
When  insolvent  he  was  pitilessly  delivered  to  the  lender ;  he  be¬ 
came  his  bondman,  he  and  his  cattle  and  his  wife  and  children — 
all  became  his  absolute  property.  lie  and  his  family  could  be 
sold  as  slaves ;  he  could  be  mutilated ;  he  was  out  of  the  pale  of 
the  law ;  his  creditor  could  cut  and  sell  him  by  piecemeal.  Such 
it  was  in  the  ancient  civilizations  outside  of  Judsea. 

Creditor  and  Debtor  in  Mosaism  and  Talmud. 

Otherwise  is  the  Biblical  law.  The  insolvent  debtor  is  bound 
to  pay ;  his  chattels  can  be  taken  in  pledge.  But  his  person,  his 
freedom,  his  life,  his  wife,  his  children  and  the  necessaries  of 


CREDITOR  AND  DEBTOR  IN  MOSAISM  AND  TALMUD. 


65 


life  cannot  be  taken  from  him.  (V  M.,  24.6  and  11)  :  “lie 
shall  not  take  in  pledge  the  millstones,”  for  that  would  be  pawn¬ 
ing  life.  Life,  and  what  belongs  to  it,  was  out  of  the  creditor’s 
reach.  Life  was  pledged  for  life,  not  life  for  goods.  Here  is 
the  principle  of  exemption  in  favor  of  the  debtor.  Even  the 
criminal’s  life  was  guaranteed  by  law.  (II  M.,  22.1)  :  “If  the 
thief  be  found  in  breaking  into  the  house  and  be  killed  (by  the 
owner),  there  is  no  murder.  But  if  in  daylight1,  there  is  mur¬ 
der  (to  kill  him).  The  thief  shall  pay  for  (his  theft),  and  if  he 
has  not,  he  shall  be  sold  for  (the  amount  of  his  theft).”  Human 
life,  be  it  of  the  debtor  or  even  the  thief,  was  sacred  and  beyond 
the  creditor’s  reach.  The  debtor  and  the  thief  must  work,  and 
the  wages  go  to  the  creditor.  But  every  seventh  year  comes  the 
year  of  Release,  and  his  debts  become  extinct.  The  seventh  year’s 
Release  sweeps  away  all  chronic  indebtedness.  There  is  no  im¬ 
prisonment  for  debt,  no  loss  of  liberty,  or  of  family,  or  of  limb. 
The  freedom,  the  life,  the  farm,  the  wife  and  children  of  the  poor, 
are  never  at  stake.  If  he  had  stolen  or  robbed  and  is  incapable 
of  indemnifying  the  wrong  party,  then  the  Court  may  sell  him 
into  servitude  for  six  years,  not  longer.  The  year  of  Release,  ar¬ 
riving,  restores  him  to  his  liberty,  his  family  and  his  acre,  which 
are  and  remain  inalienable ;  his  human  dignity  is  above  all  vicis¬ 
situde.  His  house  is  his  castle,  his  wife  and  children,  his  widow 
and  orphans,  can  never  be  taken,  sold  or  pawned.  Here  is  the 
Habeas  Corpus  of  the  Biblical  State.  In  Rome  and  Athens  he 
and  they  became  alienated,  the  property  of  the  creditor ;  they 
could  be  separated  and  sold  as  so  many  sheep.  The  Judaean 
community  ever  guaranteed  the  principle  of  liberty,  human- 
hood  and  brotherhood,  as  the  necessary  outcome  of  the  universal 
solidarity  of  the  brotherhood  of  men  and  the  fatherhood  of  the 
One  God-head.  A  citizen  in  distress  was  not  given  up  as  a  lost 
sheep;  hence  the  Lawgiver  enjoins:  “If  thy  brother  will  impov- 

'D'OT  I'N  y’Dtyn  nmt  DN  Rabbinical  tradition  interprets  the  verse 
otherwise:  I  venture  to  follow  the  plain  sense,  in  full  keeping  with 
the  spirit  of  the  Mosaic  Legislation,  that  life  is  above  property,  that  the 
thief  is  still  a  brother,  and  his  life  to  be  protected— a  luminous  view,  not 
reached  yet  even  in  our  times,  the  age  of  democracy;  that  is  sublime. 


66 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


erish  and  decline,  thou  shalt  encourage  him,  be  he  a  stranger  or 
a  resident  (Gentile  or  Jew)  ;  let  him  live  with  thee,  take  no  in¬ 
terest  or  any  other  advantage  of  him ;  be  afraid  of  God  . 

And  if  thou  pawnest  him  and  he  be  poor,  return  him  the  pawn 
at  each  sunset,  that  God  may  bless  thee.”  What  a  broad  sympa¬ 
thy  with  all  phases  and  strata  of  human  misery!  (For  further 
elucidation  see  “Spirit  of  Biblical  Legislation,”  Part  IT,  51-72.) 

Siiylock.  Jewish  and  Roman  Law. 

Thus  we  have  seen  that  whilst  Mosaism  and  Talmud  stand 
up  for  rigid  justice  and  guarantee  property,  they  nevertheless 
guarantee  too  the  human  rights  of  the  debtor.  They  allow  no 
ifnprisoment  for  debt  and  no  sale  of  his  person,  his  wife,  his 
children,  his  farm,  his  tools  and  his  necessaries  of  life;  at  the 
Release  Year  his  debts  are  totally  cancelled,  and  he  is  free 
and  begins  to  work  for  his  own  and  his  family’s  benefit.  What 
an  immense  superiority  over  the  Laws  of  Hammurabi,  Solon, 
the  XII  Tables,  the  Code  of  Justinianus,  of  Charlemagne,  or 
even  of  Napoleon  I1  Nevertheless,  in  the  face  of  such  striking 
originality  and  such  humane  and  sympathetic  legislation,  of 
such  broad  charity  and  solidarity,  malice  and  prejudice  have 
ruthlessly  and  unblushingly  tried  to  fasten  upon  it  the  reproach 
of  combined  plagiarism,  cruelty,  intolerance,  usury  and  for¬ 
eigner-hatred,  in  their  personification  and  embodiment,  Shy- 
lock,  in  the  known  play  by  Shakespeare.  Let  us  remain  equani- 
inous  and  quietly  consider:  Can  there  grow  up  a  Jewish  Shy- 
lock  upon  such  a  soil  ?  Can  such  seeds,  roots  and  culture  grow 
such  a  poisonous  plant  ?  Shvlock,  insisting  upon  a  pound  of 
flesh  from  his  insolvent  debtor?  For  the  honor  of  humanity, 
let  it  first  be  remarked  that  never  such  a  hyena  in  human  form 
has  existed  in  any  civilized  society,  and  that  hyena  should  have 
been  suckled  at  the  breast  of  Judaism?  That  is  impossible! 
That  is  absurd  !  Shvlock  is  not  a  Jew,  nor  even  a  human  being. 
He  is  a  fiction,  a  stage  creature,  to  amuse  the  mob.  He  has  no 
Jewish  instincts,  no  Hebrew  and  no  human  soul,  and  what  he 
asks  for  is  not  Jewish  law,  not  his  Biblical  right.  No;  his 
heart  is  filled  with  fiendish  gall  and  heathen  revenge;  he  is  mad 
with  bitter  passion,  and  his  “ pound  of  flesh”  is  granted  him, 

'The  “Code  Napole’on”  approaches  often  the  Mosaic  one,  because  it  is  based, 
if  not  on  liberty,  at  least  on  human  equality.  Otherwise  they  differ ;  for 
the  one  is  the  work  of  a  conqueror,  the  other  of  a  liberator. 


SHYLOCK.  JEWISH  AND  EOMAN  LAW. 


67 


not.  by  the  Law  of  Moses  or  the  Talmud,  but  by  the  old  Roman 
Law,  by  the  XII  Tables  of  the  Decemvirs,  fully  elaborated  in 
the  Codex  Justinianus  and  then  in  force  at  Venice,  the  scene 
of  Shakespeare’s  Shylock.  Here  is  the  soil  and  the  gardener 
that  grew  that  poisonous  monster.  The  Roman  Code,  indeed, 
alloweed  the  surrender  and  mutilation  of  the  insolvent  debtor. 
Whilst  the  Mosaic  Thora  ordains  forbearance  and  mercy.  The 
Rabbis  recommend  ( Maimonides  Yad,  Mada)  even  “ not  to 
pass  his  house  or  angrily  to  look  at  the  poor  debtor,  for  fear  of 
aggrieving  and  shaming  him.”  A  people  taught  not  to  enjoy 
of  animal  blood — will  ask  for  human  blood  2  Fie  upon  such 
mean  slander!  The  playwright  simply  yielded  to  his  specta¬ 
tors,  to  the  ideas  of  his  age,  and  gave  the  role  of  Shylock,  con¬ 
trary  to  the  legend,  to  the  Jew.  Still,  his  conscience  revolted; 
he  felt  the  impossibility  of  the  character ;  his  honesty  and  his 
genius  strove  to  render  historical  justice  by  the  backdoor.  He 
represented  Shylock  not  only  mad  with  exasperation  and  re¬ 
venge,  but  justly  and  legitimately  mad.  He  showed  him  as  a 
man  in  whom  all  feelings  and  rights  of  humanity  had  been 
wounded,  in  whom  all  instincts  of  manhood  and  fatherhood  had 
been  trodden  underfoot.  He  had  been  berated  at  the  Exchange, 
buffooned  and  brutally  wronged  in  the  City ;  had  been  called 
odious  names,  kicked  and  spat  upon  in  the  streets ;  his  only 
child  was  beguiled  and  corrupted  and  made  to  elope  with  her 
seducer  and  his  money ;  thus  his  human  heart  had  been  soured 
and  poisoned,  his  sympathies  perverted  and  galled.  During  a 
lifetime  brutally  treated,  he  became  a  brute.  Therefore  it  was 
perfectly  natural  in  him  to  act  as  he  did — as  a  hyena — because 
his  tormentors  had,  by  their  maltreatment,  turned  him  into  a 
hyena ;  they  reaped  what  they  had  sown — that  is  ever  the  result 
of  racial  oppression;  the  minorities  are  what  the  majorities 
make  of  them. 

Such  is  the  Shylock  of  Shakespeare,  though  entirely  different 
from  reality,  even  from  the  legend,  as  we  shall  see  further  on. 
Xow,  behold  the  height  of  prejudice  and  malice,  with  the  su¬ 
perlative  of  absurdity.  Here  is,  on  one  side,  Israel,  a  race  and 


08 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


civilization  of  4,000  years’  standing,  teeming  with  superiority, 
with  men  of  genius,  of  ethical  and  mental  heroism,  with  self- 
sacrifice  and  altruism,  bringing  forth  the  noblest  literature,  pro¬ 
ducing  the  three  world-religions,  standing  in  the  forefront  of 
history,  with  a  fine  share  of  initiative  in  almost  all  the  great  de¬ 
partments  of  human  activity,  symbolized,  as  the  Messiah  of 
mankind,  with  a  purple  dipped  in  his  own  blood,  with  a  crown 
of  thorns  on  his  brow.  On  the  other  side  is  a  work  of  fiction, 
with  a  fictitious,  unnatural,  impossible  role,  a  maniac,  asking 
for  his  gold  or  a  pound  of  human  flesh,  and  in  this  raving 
usurer,  prejudice  and  malevolence  recognize  that  millenial  peo¬ 
ple,  that  messianic  Israel,  Shylock  to  be  Israel’s  type !  Preju¬ 
dice  declares  that  not  Abraham  or  Moses  or  Isaiah,  not  Jesus,  or 
Paul,  or  Ilillel,  or  Mendelssohn  or  Moses  Montefiore,  but  that 
impossible  maniac,  Shylock,  is  to  be  the  “representative  of  the 
Biblical  people”  !  Add  to  this  that  the  original  legend  of  Shylock 
is  the  very  reverse  of  Shakespeare’s.  It  is  the  Jew  who  is  the 
insolvent  debtor,  and  of  him  his  hard  creditor  asks  a  pound  of 
flesh ;  and  the  Pope,  before  whom  the  case  is  brought,  saves  him 
by  the  same  cunning  as  Portia  saves  Antonio.  Upon  that  legend 
was  later  constructed  an  Italian  ballad,  which,  agreeable  to  the 
notions  of  mediaeval  times,  reversed  the  roles  and  characters, 
and  gave  to  the  J ew  the  part  of  asking  the  pound  of  flesh  and  to 
the  Christian  that  of  the  insolvent  debtor.  Shakespeare  had  to 
follow  the  same  line  in  order  to  please  his  audience.  Still  had 
he  the  good  sense  to  show  that  Shylock  had  been  bitterly  wronged 
and  exasperated  and  that  his  reason  was  gone,  alienated  by  mad 
revenge;  that  he  was  rather  the  victim  than  the  author  of  mis¬ 
chief.  Nevertheless,  the  mob  clings  to  the  idea  that  “Shylock 
represents  the  Jewish  people” !  The  fact  is,  he  represents  no 
people  and  no  class  of  people,  none  else  but  a  yelling  hyena,  mad 
with  the  rape  of  her  young,  chasing  after  the  hunter  who  had 
perpetrated  the  deed.  Mad  and  raving  as  that  dehumanized 
maniac  is,  still  he  is  the  pivot  of  the  play,  who,  under  a  hideous 
mask,  appeals  strongty  to  the  sympathy  of  the  audience,  which, 
in  spite  of  mediaeval  preventions,  feels  with  humanity  outraged 


SHYLOCK.  JEWISH  AND  ROMAN  LAW. 


69 


iu  that  man  and  turned  to  a  monster.  Shakespeare’s  version  of 
Shylock  offers  the  delineation  and  the  genesis  of  the  peculiari¬ 
ties  of  the  Jew  of  fiction  and  of  history.  Indeed,  with  a  deep 
insight  into  the  state  of  mind  of  the  Jew  of  history  and  reality, 
the  English  playwright  offers  us  the  clue  to  the  “ peculiarities ” 
of  the  fictitious  Jew,  as  imagined  by  the  populace.  Both  have 
their  source  in  the  treatment  he  has  been  receiving  at  the  hands 
of  his  neighbors  and  country;  they  are  the  result  of  his  social 
status,  the  impress  of  his  surroundings.  History,  psychology 
and  romance  show  him  to  be  the  author  of  his  virtues  and  the 
victim  and  unfree  imitator  of  the  vices  of  his  oppressors.  These, 
not  he,  are  to  be  justly  blamed  for  his  defects.  A  greater  mas¬ 
ter  still  than  the  English  poet,  and  long  ago,  has  expressed  the 
same  opinion  in  his  terse,  cutting  sentences :  “Like  a  wild  off¬ 
shoot  without  form  or  beauty,  despised  and  decrepit,  did  he  bear 
our  diseases  .  .  .  was  he  wounded  for  our  iniquities  .  .  .  and 
through  his  bruises  was  healing  granted  unto  us”  (Isaiah,  53). 

Let  us  hope  the  present  study  will  help  to  disarm  sectarian 
and  racial  prejudice,  and  induce  men  to  think  more  and  berate 
less.  Let  us  hope  our  fair,  free,  American  country  will  yield  no 
standing-room  to  spiteful  prepossessions.  Let  us  hope  the  scores 
of  races  and  creeds  living  fraternally  under  the  protecting  wings 
of  the  United  States’  Eagle  wdll  study  more  accurately  and  care¬ 
fully  and  entertain  but  kindly  regards  for  that  remarkable  peo¬ 
ple  which,  since  hoary  antiquity  to  this  day,  has  been  such  a 
mighty  factor  of  civilization  and  has  given  birth  to  so  many  of 
the  brightest  men,  ideas  and  institutions  benefiting  mankind. 


70 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


CHAPTER  HI. 

The  Negative  Benevolence  Laws  of  Mosaism. 

We  have  divided  the  Mosaic  Laws  on  humanity  and  sympathy 
into  positive  and  negative  ones.  The  positive  ones  ordain  actual, 
beneficent  deeds,  requiring  a  sacrifice :  Give  part  of  thy  crops,  of 
the  produce  of  thy  flocks  and  industry  to  the  needy ;  associate 
them  to  thy  table  on  festivities,  forego  their  debts,  let  them  and 
their  family-acre  go  free  at  stated  periods  etc.  We  have  dis¬ 
cussed  these  positive  Mosaic  Charity  Laws.  The  second  set  of 
such  laws,  we  have  seen,  are  of  a  negative  nature :  Do  no  harm, 
interfere  not,  be  not  in  the  way  of  thy  neighbor,  live  and  let  live ; 
do  not  take  advantage  of  his  weakness,  crush  him  not  by  unequal, 
unfair  competition,  by  artificial,  social,  not  natural,  advantages. 
‘‘Do  not  unto  thy  neighbor  what  thou  wouldst  not  he  should  do 
unto  thee  ;’n  he,  too,  has  a  right  to  life  and  the  pursuit  of  happi¬ 
ness.  Moreover,  we  have  seen  that  these  negative,  beneficent 
laws  are  more  important  than  the  positive  ones,  that  society 
has  more  interest  in  plain  justice  than  in  charity;  in  preventing 
usurpation,  selfish  interference  and  active  wrong-doing,  than  in 
positive  altruism,  donations  and  self-sacrifice ;  that  these  are 
really  but  palliatives,  but  a  partial  and  impotent  making-good 
of  the  havoc  done  by  the  first.  If  no  outright  wrongs  were  com¬ 
mitted,  if  everyone  would  have  his  due,  very  rarely  would  any¬ 
body  need  anyone’s  charity;  if  the  negative  laws  would  be  ob¬ 
served,  the  positive  ones  could  be  dispensed  with ;  if  no  sup¬ 
planting,  artificial  influence  and  unfair  patronage ;  if  no  cun¬ 
ning,  lying  and  slandering,  if  no  over-reaching,  stealing  and 
robbery,  there  woud  be  little  need  of  the  so-called  philanthropy 
and  almsgiving;  no  need  of  homes,  orphanages,  poor-houses, 
hospitals,  asylums,  work-houses,  correction-houses  etc.  Free 
competition  is  just,  conducive  to  the  welfare  of  the  majority, 
and  gradually  of  all ;  but  unfree,  artificial  competition  favors 
the  minority  and  ruins  the  majority.  There  may  be  higher 
ideals ;  still,  for  the  time  being,  honest  and  free  competition  is 
good  enough;  let  merit  have  its  reward.  But  under  the  guise 
'Hillers  version  of  the  Golden  Rule. 


THE  STRANGER. 


71 


of  competition,  patronage  rules ;  nepotism  and  favoritism  pro¬ 
duce  plutocracy  and  pauperism,  which  in  the  end  ruin  the  com¬ 
munity  and  render  freedom  and  equality  a  sham,  just  an  op¬ 
portunity  to  sell  the  poor  man’s  vote  and  pave  the  way  to  des¬ 
potism.  The  history  of  Rome,  Athens,  Corinth  etc.,  not  to 
mention  any  modern  examples,  illustrates  that  to  clear-sighted 
thinkers.  Row,  let  us  follow  up  our  theme  along  II  M.,  22. 
etc.,  and  analyze  those  numerous  verses  bearing  upon  the  Mosaic 
Negative,  humanitarian  laws,  those  which  ask  for  justice,  not 
charity ;  let  alone  and  interfere  not.  Some  of  these  verses  we 
have  alluded  to,  in  anticipation,  but  we  shall  now  set  them 
forth  in  their  full  light  and  force,  illustrating  the  Mosaic  idea: 
More  right  and  less  charity,  justice  to  all;  aid,  pity  and  man- 
sue tude  to  the  unfortunate  and  the  oppressed ;  just  punishment 
to  the  criminals  and  the  wicked. 

The  Stranger. 

(II  M.,  22.20)  :  “And  a  stranger  (a  foreign,  non-Israelite,  in 
Judaea)  thou  shalt  not  over-reach,1  or  oppress,  for  (remember) 
strangers  you  were  in  Egypt.”  What  magnanimity,  what  sweet 
sympathy,  what  broad  and  cloudless  humanity !  Three  thou¬ 
sand  years  ago,  when  each  township,  clan,  temple  and  speech 
was  so  exclusive,  when  “stranger”  was  synonymous  with  enemy, 
and  an  enemy  was  out  of  the  pale  of  the  law,  rightless,  the  first 
comer’s  booty,  though  poetically  Zeos  was  complimented  as 
“Zeos  Xenios,  the  benign  protector  of  strangers,”2— that  was  a 

*nm  vex,  over-reach,  aggrieve,  take  advantage  of,  since  he  stands 
alone,  an  “outsider.” 

2Homeri  Odysseiee  liber  Yl.  206  : 

All’  ode  tis  dystenos  alo’menos  enthad  ;  ikanei  ton  nyn  chre  komeein.  Pros 
gar  Dios  eisin  apantes  xenoi  te  ptochoi  te  dosis  de  olige  te  file  te’.  Alla 
dot’  amflpoloi  xeino  browsin  te  .  .  . 

Homeri  Odysseiee  VII.  30 : 

All  ithi  sige  toion,  ego  de  odon  egeinoneuso.  Mede  tin’  anthropon  proti- 
osseo  med’  ereeine.  Ou  gar  xeinos  oide  mal’  anthropous  anechontai,  oud’ 
agapazomenoi  fileous’  os  k’  allothen  elthe. 

Ibid.  VII.  41.  E  ra  oi  achlyn  thespesian  katecheue  fila  froneous’  eni 
thymo  .  .  .  Here  we  see  strangers  to  be  greatly  disliked  and  not  safe  in  a 
foreign  land.  They  need  the  special  protection  of  the  gods,  their  miracu¬ 
lous  guardianship  and  interference,  as  also  that  of  the  sweet  sympathy  of 
womanhood  to  extend  some  help  to  a  needy  foreigner. 


72 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


mere  ideal.  Really,  the  stranger  and  the  shipwrecked  were 
rightless.  In  Mosaism  the  ideal  became  an  imperious,  positive 
duty :  “Oppress  not  the  stranger,  let  him  thrive  by  thy  side !” 
But  even  today  the  Mosaic  commandment  is  still  an  ideal,  just 
as  at  the  epoch  of  the  Trojan  war.  At  no  time  had  we  more  of 
“nativism  and  foreignerism.”  England  is  for  the  English,  Ger¬ 
many  for  the  Germans,”  etc.  Humanity  alone  has  no  home ! 
At  every  step  there  is  discrimination ;  in  the  street,  the  club  and 
the  party,  in  the  politics,  courthouse  and  Government  halls.  As 
the  shipwrecked  of  old  were  the  booty  of  the  first  comer,  even 
so  is  the  “foreigner”  just  now.  Mosaism,  3,000  years  ago, 
taught  (II  M.,  23.9)  :  “Press  not  the  stranger  to  the  wall.  You 
should  know  how  he  feels !  Were  you  not  aliens  once  upon  a 
time  ?”  How  well-aimed,  how  plain  and  outspoken !  Anti- 
Semitism  declares  the  Jew  an  alien,  beneath  the  law;  Mosaism 
says  (III  M.,  4.22)  :  “There  shall  be  one  right  for  you,  as  the 
stranger  so  the  indigenous.” — (II  M.,  23.12)  :  “For  six  days 
thou  shalt  work  and  let  thy  factory  go  on,  but  on  the  seventh  day 
have  a  rest,  to  the  end  that  thy  ox  and  thy  ass,  thy  slave  and 
thy  stranger  shall  recuperate.”  How  thrilling  with  sympathy 
for  all — the  enslaved,  the  ostracized,  the  dumb  brute ! 

Widows  and  Orphans. 

(II  M.,  22.21)  :  “The  widow  and  the  orphan  ye  shall  not  op¬ 
press,  for  if  you  oppress  them,  they  had  but  appeal  to  me,  and 
1  shall  surely  listen  to  their  cry,  and  my  ire  will  be  enkindled, 
and  I  shall  kill  you  by  the  sword,  that  your  wives  become  wid¬ 
ows  and  your  children  orphans.”  What  an  effective,  realistic 
appeal  to  human  conscience !  It  goes  straight  to  the  heart ;  it 
hits  the  vulnerable  point,  as  William  Tell’s  arrow  goes  to  the 
heart  of  Gessler.  Here  is  the  obdurate,  selfish,  noble  or  pluto¬ 
crat,  callous  to  pity,  justice  and  remorse.  He  takes  advantage 
of  the  widow,  he  grabs  her  farm,  corrupts  her  daughter  and 
sends  to  the  army  her  son.  How  can  you  reach  him  ?  God,  con¬ 
science,  pity,  do  not  touch  him.  But  he  feels  yet  with  his  own 
wife  and  children ;  here  is  his  vulnerable  point ;  the  Lawgiver 
appeals  to  that  lonely  spot  of  hidden  humanity :  I,  the  Almighty. 


WIDOWS  AMD  ORPHANS — NATIVE  AND  STRANGER. 


73 


I  am  the  husband  of  the  widow  and  the  father  of  the  orphan, 
and  if  you  spare  them  not  My  “far-reaching  arrows”  will  reach 
you,  and  your  wife  and  children  will  be  widowed  and  orphaned ; 
That  may  move  him,  if  anything  will !  There  is  yonder  a  hard¬ 
hearted  master  of  a  factory,  a  moneymaker  by  nature,  birth  and 
trade.  Still,  he  is  an  “honorable  alderman.”  One  of  his  over¬ 
worked  workmen,  dying  at  35  years,  leaves  a  widow  and  five 
orphans,  with  a  small  pittance  as  insurance,  their  only  resource. 
He  leaves  them  to  the  care  and  the  guardianship  of  his  employer, 
the  “honorable  alderman,”  who  pockets  the  insurance  and  leaves 
the  widow  and  orprans  adrift,  to  want  and  shame.  God  is  too 
far  on  high  for  him ;  hell  and  brimstone  too  far  below.  The 
courthouse  has  no  terrors  for  the  crafty  and  the  strong.  But  now 
the  “alderman”  is  spreading  himself  in  his  pew  at  church,  and 
the  manly  preacher  calls  to  his  mind :  “A  widow  and  orphan 
thou  shalt  not  oppress,  for  God’s  ire  will  enkindle  at  the  cry  of 
innocence ;  behold,  tomorrow  you  will  be  in  your  grave,  and  your 
wife  will  be  a  widow  and  your  children  orphans” — that  may 
bring  him  to  a  better  sense  of  justice.  I  myself,  in  tender  years, 
became  a  ward  of  such  a  guardian,  such  an  honorable  President 
of  a  Congregation,  who  left  me  in  want  during  my  minority  and 
swore  away  my  scant  inheritance  at  my  majority.  The  minister 
administering  the  oath  at  Court  told  me :  “Surely,  he  will  com¬ 
mit  perjury!”  Still,  he  had  not  the  manliness  of  quoting  to  the 
wretch  that  effective  text ;  he  was  too  politic. 

Loan  and  Interest  Resumed — Native  aivd  Stranger. 

We  have  treated  of  this  theme.  Still  it  needs  some  further  re¬ 
marks  and  elucidations. 

(TI  M.,  22.24)  :  “If  thou  lendest  money  to  my  people,1  to  the 
poor,  near  thee,  be  no  hard  creditor,  put  no  usury  upon  him.” 
The  verse  emphasizes  “to  the  poor  near  thee;”  the  borrower  is 
thy  neighbor,  in  distress  and  need,  the  money  is  to  allay  his  pov¬ 
erty,  not  to  speculate  and  make  profit  by  it.  Thus  is  all  interest 
or  usury  prohibited.  As  mentioned  above,  Mosaism  legislated  for 
an  agricultural  and  cattle-raising  people,  with  hardly  any 
larger  industries  or  commerce.  Its  ideal  was  a  theocratic  democ- 

1The  rabbis  expound  “  My  people,  who  is  it  ?  The  poor  are  the  people 
of  God.” 


74 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


racy,  with  political,  social  and  economical  equality,  work  and 
property,  but  without  plutocracy  and  pauperism ;  with  a  farm 
for  every  male  adult,  as  the  chief  means  of  support,  hereditary 
and  inalienable ;  avoiding  by  all  means  concentration  of  lands, 
wealth  and  political  influence.  Nevertheless,  by  misfortune,  vice 
and  laziness,  by  drought,  hailstorm,  fire,  locusts,  war  and  other 
accidents,  bad  crops  and  poverty  will  ensue,  and  the  poor  man 
may  need  to  borrow,  then  it  is  a  virtue  and  a  duty  to  lend  him 
money  or  goods ;  to  lend  is  even  better  than  to  give1  alms ;  to  lend 
on  easy  terms,  hence  :  “Be  no  hard  creditor  and  exact  no  profit  or 
interest.”  To  make  its  sense  perfectly  clear,  let  us  adduce  III 
M.,  25.35  :  “If  thy  brother  impoverishes  and  declines  in  fortune, 
then  shalt  thou  encourage  him ;  be  he  a  (non-Hebrew)  stranger 
or  a  fellow-citizen,  let  him  live  with  thee,  take  of  him  no  usury 
or  increase ;  fear  God,  and  let  thy  brother  live  by  thee.”  Here 
the  law  on  interest  is  clear,  fully  supplemented  and  elucidated. 
A  poor  neighbor,  be  he  a  native  fellow-Israelite  or  an  immigrant 
non-Israelite,  shall  be  assisted  and  money  or  goods  lent  to  him, 
without  interest  or  profit,  and  on  easy  terms,  not  to  press  him; 
for  he  is  ever  “thy  brother,  let  him  live  by  thee.”  Wo  have  seen 
above  that  this  is  by  no  means  contradicted,  but  rather  corrob¬ 
orated  by  V  M.,  23.20-21 :  “Take  no  interest  of  thy  brother 
.  .  .  of  the  alien  thou  mayest  take  interest,  not  of  thy  brother.” 
Here  is  discriminated,  not  against  another  creed  or  people,  but 
a  distinction  is  made  between  an  inhabitant  of  Juda?a  and  one 
of  Phoenicia,  Arabia  or  Syria.  Because  these  were  commercial 
and  industrial  countries  and  nations,  their  inhabitants  borrowed 
money  or  goods  on  speculation,  hence  it  was  fair  and  just  to  al¬ 
low  part  of  the  profits  to  the  borrower  who  commercially  fur¬ 
nished  the  capital,  the  nerve  and  chief  tool  of  speculation.  So 
later,  during  the  Second  Commonwealth,  when  the  Jews  them¬ 
selves  had  become  largely  commercial  and  industrial,  occupying 
with  banking,  navigation,  exchange  and  supply  of  commodities, 
the  Rabbis,  interpreting  that  usury-Law  according  to  the  intrin¬ 
sic  spirit,  not  the  letter,  entirely  lost  sight  of  any  difference  be- 

‘jnun  jd  mr  mbn  bni  is  a  Rabbinical  rule  of  ethics. 


EXEMPTION  LAW. 


75 


tween  Jew  and  non- Jew,  and  discriminated  only  between  loans 
on  speculation  and  borrowing  when  in  distress.  In  the  latter 
case  all  interest  was  usury  and  prohibited,  as  heretofore,  with¬ 
out  any  difference  of  nationality  and  creed.  But  interest  on 
loans  of  speculation  was  allowed.  To  save  the  authority  of  the 
letter  of  the  law,  a  contract  was  simulated  between  lender  and 
borrower,  as  partners  in  a  business  transaction,  by  wrhich  the 
lender  renounced  his  share  of  the  profits  to  be  made  in  that 
speculation,  in  consideration  of  a  stipulated  fixed  percentage  of 
the  sum  lent.  This  simulated  legal  instrument  was  termed : 
‘‘Business  (and  interest)  license”  Heter  Iske. 

Exemption  Law. 

(II  M.,  22.25)  :  “If  thou  take  (at  all)  thv  neighbor’s  raiment 
in  pledge,  thou  shalt  return  it  to  him  at  sunset,  for  that  is  his 
only  covering,  the  raiment  of  his  skin,  whereon  shall  he  sleep 
.  .  .  and  if  he  cry  to  me,  I  shall  hear,  for  I  am  misericordious.” 
The  Legislator  is  here  swayed  by  two  opposite  considerations, 
the  right  of  the  lender  and  the  pity  for  the  poor  borrower.  He 
pleads  for  the  latter,  appealing  to  the  mercy  of  the  former:  You 
have  a  legal  right  upon  the  garment,  but  be  merciful  with  pov¬ 
erty !  That  is  sublime!  A  similar  enactment  is  V  M.,  24.6: 
“Yo  man  shall  take  the  millstone  in  pledge  (for  debt),  for  he 
taketh  a  man’s  life  in  pledge.” 

(Ibid.,  24.10)  :  “When  thou  lendest  thy  brother  a  loan,  thou 
shalt  not  enter  into  his  house  to  take  his  pledge  .  .  .  wait  out¬ 
doors  and  he  shall  bring  it  out  unto  thee  .  .  .  And  if  he  be 
poor,  thou  shalt  not  lie  down  with  his  pledge,  but  return  it  at 
sunset.'  A  widow,  even  if  rich,  could  never  be  pawned.  A 
Hebrew  enslaved  is  recommended  as  still  being  a  brother,  and 
no  hard  labor  is  to  be  imposed  upon  him1.  Even  a  Gentile  slave 
was  recommended  to  mercy,  and  if  his  Jewish  master  knocked 
out  his  tooth,  the  slave  went  out  free.  Setting  him  free  was 
recommended  as  a  noble  charity  (see  Treatise  on  Slavery  further 
on). 


'■pea  nuyn  xb 


76 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  CF  PENTATEUCH. 


V  M.,  15.7,  reads :  “When  there  will  be  with  thee  a  needy  one, 
do  not  harden  thy  heart  or  close  thy  hand  against  thy  poor 
brother,  but  open  thy  hand  widely  to  him,  and  lend  him  liberally 
ail  he  needs.  Beware  that  thy  wicked  heart  shall  not  hesitate 
and  say,  the  Year  of  Release  is  near  by  .  .  .  and  with  an  evil 
eye  thou  wilt  refuse  to  give  him  .  .  .  dSTo,  thou  shalt  give  him 
and  God  will  bless  thee  for  that  .  .  .  When  thou  lettest  go  free 
thy  Hebrew  slave,  let  him  not  go  away  empty-handed,  furnish 
him  liberally  from  thy  flocks,  thy  threshing-floor  and  thy  wine 
press.  Remember,  a  slave  thou  hast  been  in  Egypt  and  God  has 
redeemed  thee  from  there,  therefore  I  ordain  thee  to  do  this." 
The  Rabbis  recommended  warmly  the  charity  of  lending  on  easy 
terms,  and  if  the  debtor  cannot  pay,  not  uselessly  to  vex  him ;  not 
to  pass  often  before  his  house,  nor  to  look  askance  at  him,  for 
fear  of  shaming  him.  When  borrowing  to  the  poor,  do  it  with 
a  gracious  mien  ...  Be  not  afraid  that  the  Year  of  Release 
or  absolute  poverty  will  forfeit  the  debt.  By  such  laws  and  rec¬ 
ommendations  they  try  to  cope  with  inequality  of  fortune  and  to 
render  pauperism  less  frequent  and  crushing. — (V.  M.,  15.1- 
11)  :  “At  the  Year  of  Release  let  every  master  of  debts  forego 
his  claim  and  exact  it  not  of  his  neighbor  and  brother  .  .  .  that 
there  may  be  no  pauper  near  thee  .  .  .  though  there  will  never 
the  poor  disappear  from  the  land.”  Ho  exaggeration,  no  dreams 
and  Utopias;  the  legislator  knows  the  world,  with  its  woes  and 
its  struggles,  and  makes  realistic  efforts  to  mitigate  them.  Com¬ 
pare  that  with  other  ancient  and  even  some  modern  codices ;  the 
exorbitant  usury,  the  privileges  againts  and  pressure  on  insol¬ 
vent  debtors,  the  cruelties  practiced  even  against  his  innocent 
family,  and  you  will  realize  the  superior  humanity  of  Mosaism. 

Why  Money-Lending  Jews. 

How,  then,  did  it  come  to  pass  that  Western  Israel  became  so 
much  identified  with  money-lenders  and  usurers  ?  During  the 
Middle  Ages  the  Church  felt  some  scruples  to  allow  interest  on 
money  loans,  emphatically  prohibited  in  the  Pentateuch.  It 
failed  to  recognize  the  real  sense,  and  discriminate  between  the 
circumstances  and  environments  of  the  ancient  Judaean  legislator 


MONEY  LENDERS. 


77 


and  the  later  times,  with  radically  changed  individual  and  inter¬ 
national  relations,  with  vast  industrial  and  mercantile  interests 
and  pursuits,  by  far  more  important  than  the  agrarian  and  eco¬ 
nomical  conditions  of  antiquity.  The  monastic  leaders  of  the 
Church  continued  to  thunder  against  usury,  forgetting  that  the 
old  Mosaic  law  already  discriminated  between  loaning  for  bread 
and  borrowing  for  speculation.  At  any  rate,  the  money  business 
was  intimately  bound  up  with  many  hardships  for  the  poorer, 
borrowing  masses.  Now  those  theologians  erroneously  and 
naively  remarked  that  the  Mosaic  Law  declares:  “Of  the  for¬ 
eigner  thou  mayest  take  interest,  not  of  thy  brother.  ’ 
They  clumsily  and  inaptly  interpreted  it  in  a  sectarian,  dis¬ 
criminating  sense,  viz:  “Of  the  non-Jew  thou  canst  take  in¬ 
terest,  not  of  thy  fellow- Jew;”  hence,  they  reasoned,  the  Jew 
is  not  forbidden  to  take  interest  of  the  Christian!  Now,  since 
they  needed  money-lenders  and  bankers,  and  since  the  trade  of 
money-lenders  was  ever  odious  to  the  people,  though  indispensa¬ 
bly  necessary,  they  first  allowed  to  the  Jew  and  soon  compelled 
him,  to  resort  to  the  usury  trade,  from  necessity  first,  and  next, 
from  the  desire  to  make  him  still  more  odious  They  drove  and 
forced  him  out  of  every  fair  and  lucrative  activity,  business, 
trade  or  profession,  and  legally  drove  and  forced  him  into  the 
odious  pawn-broker  shop,  the  usury  business,  using  and  abusing 
him  as  a  leech  or  sponge  to  suck  in  the  gold  and  then  to  squeeze 
it  out  from  him  whenever  they  needed  that  gold ;  all  the  while 
reproaching  him  with  usury,  while  they  had  forced  him  into  it 
and  left  him  no  other  chance  and  no  fair  avenue  to  any  decent 
livelihood. 

The  Rabbis  on  Creditor  and  Debtor — Maimonid.  Yad, 
Judgments.1 

It  is  a  positive  duty  to  lend  to  the  poor,  and  that  is  more 
meritorious  even  than  to  give  alms.  It  is  a  negative  command¬ 
ment  not  to  insist  on  payment  if  the  debtor  has  not ;  nor  to  take 
a  pledge  of  him  without  his  consent,  except  so  ordered  by  the 


78 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


Court.  The  creditor  is  bid  to  return  the  pledge  to  him  when 
needed,  every  day  or  every  night,  just  according  to  the  nature 
of  the  garment.  It  is  a  duty  not  to  take  any  pledge  of  a  widow, 
even  if  rich ;  not  to  take  in  pledge  the  working  tools  or  the  bare 
necessaries  of  existence  ;*  not  to  take  any  interest  or  usury  on 
money  or  profit  on  any  goods ;  neither  to  give  nor  to  take  goods 
or  money  on  interest;  not  to  be  concerned  as  brokers  etc.  in  any 
business  connected  with  interest.  Between  a  Jew  and  a  (mer¬ 
cantile)  Gentile  interest  is  allowed.  The  Rabbis  knew  of  no 
(legal)  rate  of  interest;  any  interest  is  usury  whenever  not  le¬ 
gally  allowed.  A  creditor  exacting  payment,  though  knowing 
that  the  debtor  has  not,  commits  a  grave  sin  of  commission. 
The  creditor  is  forbidden  to  show  himself  to  the  poor  debtor, 
nor  even  to  pass  before  his  house,  in  order  not  uselessly  to 
shame  him  or  make  him  uneasy.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  the 
bounden  duty  of  the  debtor  to  pay  if  he  can ;  he  shall  not  delay 
doing  so  promptly.  An  honest  man  shall  not  borrow  and  spend 
in  a  frivolous  way ;  and  whosoever  acts  so  is  a  wrongdoer,  raslia. 
All  the  property  of  the  debtor,  movables  and  immovables,  are 
liable  and  subject  to  the  creditor,  even  when  pledged  to  his 
wife ;  only  the  most  necessaries  are  left  for  himself,  his  wife 
and  children,  as  food  for  30  days ;  raiment  for  a  year  and 
some  scant  furniture  for  the  house.  When  the  debtor  is  sus¬ 
pected  of  having  hidden  away  some  goods,  neither  the  creditor 
nor  even  the  Court-beadle  shall  enter  his  house  without  his  will, 
the  Law  having  expressly  declared  that  the  creditor  must  re¬ 
main  outside.2  But  the  Court  can  make  him  swear  and  ac¬ 
knowledge  whether  he  has  or  not  put  away  any  goods.  All 
what  he  may  earn  and  get  possession  of,  belongs  to  the  creditor, 
except  his  bare  subsistence.  If  there  are  many  creditors,  the 
debtor  hands  over  all  he  has,  and  additionally  swears  that  he 
has  nothing  more  left,  and  that  must  satisfy  all  the  creditors  at 
once.  If  he  is  well  known  as  an  honest  man,  even  that  oath  may 
be  dispensed  with.  Property  belonging  to  his  wife  cannot  be  at- 

’t’DJ  baw 
’-noyn  pna 


SHYLOCK  AND  RABBINIC  LAW. 


79 


tached  by  the  husband’s  creditors  (see  Treatises  Kethuboth,  Ne- 
sikin,  Baba  Qama,  Mezia,  Bathra;  they  are  summarily  epito¬ 
mized  from  there).  It  is  remarkable  how  much  the  above  co¬ 
incides  with  the  United  States  legal  practice,  whilst  it  differs 
so  greatly  with  Old  World  laws,  because  the  Rabbinical  and  the 
United  States  laws  were  enacted,  both,  in  the  interest  of  the 
people,  democracy. 

Shylock  and  Rabbinic  Law. 

Above  we  have  referred  to  Shakespeare’s  Shylock,  and  we 
wish  to  add  here  some  further  points  connected  with  Jewish 
law.  Shylock,  a  bom  Jew,  is  the  creditor  of  insolvent  Antonio, 
who  ever  before  had  Jewed  him  down,  in  mediaeval  fashion: 
“You  berated  me  on  the  Rialto  about  my  money  and  its  use; 
called  me  cutthroat,  dog,  and  spat  upon  my  gaberdine  .  .  . 
shall  I  now,  with  bated  breath,  say,  Fair  Sir,  here  is  my  money 
.  .  .  for  all  these  courtesies?”  How  for  once  Antonio  is  in  the 
grip  of  Shylock,  as  his  insolvent  debtor.  Shylock,  not  receiv¬ 
ing  his  money,  asks  for  his  stipulated  fine,  a  pound  of  flesh 
from  the  body  of  the  insolvent  debtor — and  this  man  with  a 
Jewish  mask  is  upheld  as  the  type  of  a  Jew,  and  his  action  as 
an  outcome  of  Jewish  Law!  Compare  this  with  the  above 
verses  and  judge  of  this  monstrous  accusation.  We  have  seen 
above  that  the  nucleus  of  that  drama  is  a  Northern  tale;  a  very 
old  legend  narrating  just  the  contrary:  A  Jewish  debtor  being 
insolvent,  his  Christian  creditor  asks  one  pound  of  his  flesh, 
and  the  Pope  allows  him  the  flesh,  but  not  any  blood  with  it, 
and  thus  he  eludes  the  law.  A  later  ballad  elaborated  that  legend 
with  reversed,  more  popular  roles,  viz:  The  Jewish  creditor  ask¬ 
ing  the  pound  of  flesh.  Shakespeare  adopted  this  latter  version, 
as  more  pleasing  to  the  crowd.  Nevertheless,  he  does  justice  to 
psychology,  showing  Shylock  as  much  provoked  by  insults  and 
malice,  so  as  to  make  him  madly  revengeful.  But  the  chief 
point  is  this:  Shylock  asks  for  a  pound  of  flesh,  not  as  a  Jew,  but 
as  a  1  enetian ;  not  the  Mosaic  Law,  but  the  Roman  Law,  the 
Code  of  Justinian  in  foiee  at  Venice  then,  grants  him  that.  Ac¬ 
cording  to  it,  the  insolvent  man  is  enslaved  and  may  be  muti- 


80 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


lated,  cut  in  pieces ;  hence  the  only  way  for  protecting  him  is 
subterfuge,  eluding  the  law:  You  are  allowed  flesh,  hut  no 
blood!  says  the  judge,  Portia. 

Now  the  reader  well  acquainted  with  Jewish  Law  will  see 
that,  had  the  Christian  debtor  appealed  against  Shylock  to  a 
Rabbi,  he  would  have  been  reminded  of :  “Be  no  hard  creditor 
on  thy  debtor  and  countryman;  though  a  non- Jew,  he  is  still, 
as  countryman,  thy  brother,”  and  Shylock,  despite  of  all  his 
mitigating  and  extenuating  provocations,  would  have  lost  his 
case  and  paid  the  litigation  costs.  The  fact  is,  the  Mosaic  Law 
is,  doubtless,  the  most  humane  one  towards  insolvent  debtors. 
Property  is  respected  and  protected,  but  never  as  high  as  honor, 
life  and  person  are.  The  creditor  may  claim  his  debtor’s  chat¬ 
tels,  his  property  and  his  work,  never  his  freedom,  his  wife,  his 
life,  his  limbs ;  not  even  for  a  day  can  he  imprison  him — prac¬ 
ticed  in  Europe  but  a  generation  ago.  His  character  of  a  free 
fellow-citizen  cannot  be  shaken ;  he  is  and  remains  “a  brother.” 
It  is  but  gradually  that  modern  legislation  is  rising  to  this  cor¬ 
rect  Mosaic  standpoint  of  absolute  human  equality  and  dignity, 
an  outflow  of  its  practical  leveling  monotheism,  with  one  hu¬ 
manity  and  one  right.  The  “Code  Napoleon”  approaches  it. 

Property  and  Humanity. 

Let  me  again  quote  II  M.,  22.1,  as  another  example  of  Mo¬ 
saic  forbearance  and  humanity  in  cases  concerning  attempts  on 
property,  which  again  shows  its  superior  regard  for  human  life 
and  dignity :  “If  a  thief  be  found  while  breaking  in  (to  a 
house,  underground),  and  he  be  smitten  and  killed,  there  is  no 
guilt  of  murder.1  But  if  so  in  broad  daylight,  that  is  murder ! 
(for  if  the  thief  is  not  killed  then)  he  is  to  pay  (the  value  of 
the  theft  committed)  ;  and  if  he  has  not,  he  shall  be  sold  for 
the  amount  stolen”  (for  six  years  at  the  utmost,  but  his  life  is 

'That  interesting  verse  (II  M.,  22.  1-2) :  If  a  burglar-thief  is  smitten  and 
killed,  thero  is  no  murder;  if  the  sun  shines  (in  daylight),  there  is  murder. 
That  passage  is  casuistically  interpreted  by  the  Rabbis.  The  common- 
sense  one  is  wonderfully  striking,  clear  and  just,  both,  property  and  life 
are  protected. 


PROPERTY  AND  HUMANITY. 


81 


safe).  Here  is  a  fine-feeling  sense  of  justice,  tempered  with 
humanity  and  the  right  of  property,  not  equalled  even  in  our 
own  times,  all  flowing  from  the  democratic  principle  of  Mosa- 
ism  underlying  its  Code. 

Of  late  there  was  a  great  hosannah  shout  concerning  Hammu¬ 
rabi’s  laws,  claimed  to  be  the  prototypes  of  the  Mosaic  Code, 
the  Decalogue  etc.  Here  is  a  striking,  flagrant  parallel 
(21)  :  "If  somebody  breaks  into  a  house  through  a  hole,  one 
shall  kill  him  before  that  very  hole  and  bury  him  therein.” 
(22.  there)  :  “If  somebody  commits  robbery  and  is  caught 
thereat,  he  shall  be  killed.”  Here  we  may  judge  of  the  im¬ 
mense  contrast  between  the  Mosaic  and  the  Hammurabi  Code. 
The  Mosaic  one  never  puts  life  at  par  with  property.  Life  an¬ 
swers  for  life,  never  for  property.  Property’s  value  varies  with 
rich  or  poor;  life,  in  a  democracy,  is  invariable:  The  poor 
man’s  life  is  just  as  much  worth  as  the  rich  man’s.  That  is 
Mosaic  axiom.  Hammurabi  gives  away  liberty  and  life  for 
property,  the  conquering  aristocratic  principle.  He  is  harsh 
to  the  extreme.  Any  misdemeanor  is  punished  with  loss  of 
limb,  death  and  slavery.  Still  they  claim  that  Moses  copied 
from  the  Babylonian  Code ! 

Maimonid.  Yad,  Zerairn  ( H .  Schemitta  and  Jobel). — 
Release  and  Jubilee  Laws. 

(I,  1)  :  It  is  a  positive  commandment  to  stop  all  agricultural, 
horticultural  and  arborieultural  labors  during  every  seventh 
year  of  the  Hebraic  cycle,  as  it  is  written:  “The  land  shall  rest, 
a  sabbath  to  Ihvh  .  .  .  from  tilling  and  reaping  it  shall  rest.” 
Whosoever  transgresses  that  has  broken  a  positive  and  a  nega¬ 
tive  commandment  (III,  1).  It  is  a  traditional1  law  that  such 
agricultural  work  shall  be  stopped  thirty  days  before  the  begin¬ 
ning  of  the  seventh  year,  for  that  may  be  considered  as  prepar¬ 
ing  the  ground  for  the  seventh  year.  But  in  our  time  of  non¬ 
existence  of  the  Temple,  work  is  allowed  to  the  very  eve  of  the 
seventh  year. 


’’TDO  riD^n 


82 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


(Ill,  2)  :  Nevertheless,  certain  specified  labors  of  agriculture 
are  to  be  stopped  thirty  days  previously,  for  decency  sake.1 

(IV,  12)  :  All  that  the  earth  produced  spontaneously  from 
seeds  dropped  before  the  seventh  year  is,  by  law,  allowed  for 
food.  But  the  Babbis  forbade  that  in  order  not  to  induce  any 
clandestine  sowing,  by  prohibiting  even  the  produce  of  sponta¬ 
neous  growth.  Hence  is  allowed  for  food  only  fruit  from  trees 
etc.,  that  require  no  sowing.  .  .  .  Even  garden  fruits  and 
vegetables  requiring  mostly  such  culture  are  rabbinically  for¬ 
bidden. 

(IV,  24)  :  It  is  a  positive  commandment  to  give  away  freely 
all  fruit  that  the  ground  grows  (spontaneously)  during  the 
seventh  year.  The  owner  shall  neither  close  up  his  vineyard, 
nor  gather  into  his  house  its  fruit,  but  he  must  give  away  all, 
freely,  indiscriminately,  and  take  only  a  small  portion  for  his 
own  family-use. 

(25)  :  The  Release  Year  takes  place  only  in  the  Holy  Land, 
the  Temple  existing  or  not  existing.  Syria  is  rabbinically  in¬ 
cluded  therein,  viz,  not  to  work  it  in  the  Release  Year,  whilst 
Babylonia,  Egypt,  Ammon  and  Moab,  though  they  are  rabbin¬ 
ically  tithable,  are  excluded  from  the  duties  of  Release.  Be¬ 
yond  the  Jordan,  Release  holds  good,  rabbinically,  just  as  in 
the  Holy  Land,  but  the  spontaneous  growth  there  and  in  Syria 
is  eatable.  (VI,  1)  :  The  Release-Year  fruits  of  all  kinds  are 
not  marketable  (allowed  for  commerce)  ;  they  are  holy. 

(IX,  1)  :  It  is  a  positive  duty  and  commandment  to  relin¬ 
quish  all  outstanding  debts  with  the  Release  Year,  as  written: 
Let,  every  creditor  relinquish  his  debt;2  and  whosoever  asks  for 
payment  of  a  debt  over  which  the  seventh  year  has  passed,  trans¬ 
gresses  a  negative  commandment  as  well  as  a  positive  one.3 

(IX,  2)  :  The  forfeiture  and  cancellation  of  the  debt  takes 
place,  by  law,  only  during  the  time  when  the  Jubilee  is  prac¬ 
tically  valid  and  customary,  when  the  soil,  too,  comes  back 
freely  to  its  original  owner,  be  it  in  or  out  of  the  Holy  Land. 
*py  nnoo  'jdd 

’it  t’D  ^ya  Sa  (V.  m.  is.  2.) 

’ntyyn  nyy  the  Bibl.  Commandments  of  Commission  (to  do)  and  of 
omission  (not  to  do)  ar.  613,  viz.  248  of  the  first,  and  365  of  the  latter.  So 
computed  by  the  Eabbis. 


RELEASE  AND  JUBILEE  LAWS. 


83 


Whenever  the  land  is  not  relinquished  in  the  J ubilee,  the  debts 
are  so  neither  in  the  Release  Year.  Nevertheless,  at  the  recom¬ 
mendation  of  the  Scribes  (Sopherim),  the  release  of  debts  does 
take  place  now  everywhere,  though  the  Jubilee  is  suspended. 

.  .  .  Debts  are  cancelled  just  at  the  end  of  the  seventh  year  .  .  . 
Therefore  who  loans  money  during  the  seventh  year  can  receive 
payment  all  the  year  long,  and  with  sunset  of  the  last  day  of 
the  Release  Year  the  debt  is  extinguished. 

(6)  :  The  seventh  year  cancels  the  debt  even  when  proven  by 
written  document.  .  .  .  But  if  a  piece  of  real  estate  ex¬ 
pressly  guarantees  it,  it  is  not  forfeited. 

(9)  :  When  a  sum  is  loaned  out  for  a  specified  time  beyond 
the  seventh  year,  that  year  will  not  invalidate  it  (it  is  good  after 
the  Release  Year). 

(10)  :  When  the  creditor  made  it  a  condition  that  the  seventh 
year  should  not  cancel  the  debt,  it  is  nevertheless  cancelled, 
because  nobody  can  make  any  stipulation  against  the  law.  But 
if  the  creditor  agreed  with  the  debtor  that  he  shall  never  cancel 
the  debt,  not  even  in  the  seventh  year,  then  that  stipidation  or 
promise  is  valid,  as  everyone  can  bind  himself  beyond,  not 
against,  the  law. 

(11-12)  :  The  workingman’s  wages  are  not  forfeited  by  the 
seventh  year,  except  if  he  left  them  as  a  loan.  The  same  is 
any  judiciary  fine  and  dowry.  A  loan  on  a  pledge  is  not  for¬ 
feited,  either. 

Who  deposits  his  notes  of  assets  or  active  debts  at  the  Court  of 
J ustice,  saying :  Collect  for  me  such  and  such  debts ;  no  for¬ 
feiture  takes  place.  The  same  is  when  judgment  for  payment 
has  been  passed ;  it  is  not  cancelled  in  the  seventh  year,  because 
that  is  considered  as  if  paid. 

(16)  :  When  Hillel  the  elder  saw  that  all-money  loans  are 
stopped  (and  commercial  transactions  impeded),  he  decreed 
the  institution  of  Prosbal  (prolongation  of  debts),  by  which  in¬ 
strument  in  writing,  the  cancellation  of  the  debt  was  stopped. 
This  Prosbal  is  valid  only  in  the  present  time,  when  the  Re¬ 
lease  is  only  rabbinical.  While  against  the  Mosaic  Law,  when 
restored,  it  is  not  valid. 


84 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


(17  and  18)  :  Only  a  superior  Court  of  Justice  can  issue 
such  a  Prosbal-document ;  a  usual  Court  cannot.  The  formula 
of  the  Prosbal  reads  thus :  “I  herewith  deliver  to  you  my  assets, 
Judges,  at  1ST.  1ST.,  declaring  that  for  all  the  active  debts  I  own,  I 
reserve  to  me  the  right  to  collect  them  at  any  time  I  may  desire.” 
This  is  signed  by  the  Judges  or  by  witnesses. 

(19)  :  Some  real  estate  must  underlie,  as  a  guarantee,  such  a 
Prosbal-document. 

(24)  :  A  creditor  with  a  written  note,  but  without  a  Prosbal, 
has  lost  his  claim.  But  if  he  affirms  that  he  has  lost  his  Prosbal 
he  is  to  be  believed  on  his  word,  because  he  could  insist  on  pay¬ 
ment,  even  without  any  such  instrument,  in  times  of  persecu¬ 
tion  and  subjection  to  the  Gentile  Law 

(27)  :  Scholars  loaning  each  other  money  need  no  Prosbal, 
but  a  verbal  agreement  to  collect  the  money  whenever  desired, 
since  they  know  that  in  our  times  is  the  cancellation  of  debts 
but  rabbinical,  and  is  thus  prolongated  by  mere  word. 

(28)  :  Whosoever  pays  his  debts  after  the  Release  Year,  the 
Sages  are  well  pleased  with  him.  The  creditor  then  must  say  to 
the  debtor,  I  have  long  ago  given  up'  my  debt ;  and  the  debtor  is 
to  answer,  Nevertheless,  take  this  of  me,  be  it  as  a  gift. 

(30)  :  ISTevertheless,  whosoever  refuses  to  lend  to  his  fellow- 
man  for  fear  of  the  Release  Year  and  forfeiture  of  his  debt,  is 
guilty  of  having  transgressed  a  prohibitory  commandment. 

(X,  1-4)  :  It  is  a  positive  commandment  to  count  seven 
times  seven  yeai’s,  and  to  consecrate  the  fiftieth,  as  the 
Jubilee.  This  only  the  Great-Sanhedrin  can  perform.  Four¬ 
teen  years  after  their  entrance  into  the  Holy  Land  they  began 
to  count  the  first  cycle,  and  then  celebrated  a  Schemitta  (Re¬ 
lease  Year).  After  seven  such  cycles  they  celebrated  a  Jubilee. 
They  counted  such  17  Jubilees,  when  the  First  Temple  was  de¬ 
stroyed.  Again,  on  the  thirteenth  year  after  the  construction 
of  the  Second  Temple,  a  Schemitta  -was  celebrated.  They  then 
counted  seven  times  seven  Schemittas,  and  solemnized  a  Jubilee, 
though  the  Jobal  was  really  no  longer  of  any  real,  practical 
bearing  (conform  to  the  Mosaic  Thora)  during  the  Second 
Temple  and  after  its  destruction.  (8)  :  The  Jubilee  lost  its 


RELEASE  AND  JUBILEE  LAWS. 


85 


practical  significance  from  the  time  that  the  Tribes  of  Reuben, 
Gad  and  half-Manasse  went  into  exile.  Because  it  is  said:  “Ye 
shall  call  freedom  in  the  land  to  all  its  inhabitants,”1  viz,  dur¬ 
ing  the  time  that  all  its  inhabitants  are  in  the  land,  each  tribe 
on  their  inherited  ground;  only  when  the  Jubilee  is  valid  in  the 
Holy  Land,  it  is  valid  out  of  it.  Only  during  the  J ubilee  many 
other  laws  connected  with  it,  are  in  force ;  if  not,  not. 

(14)  :  Between  Yew- Year  and  Atonement-Day  were  the 
slaves  free,  wreathed  with  flowers,  living  freely  and  making 
themselves  happy.2  With  the  advent  of  the  Atonement-Day  the 
trumpet  was  blown,  the  slaves  returned  home,  and  the  farms 
fell  back  to  their  original  owners  (viz,  during  the  Jubilee 
times).  The  soil  of  the  Holy  Land  is  never  to  be  sold  definitely 
forever.  It  returns  in  the  Jubilee.  But  if  it  is  sold  expressly 
for  sixty  years,  it  is  not  becoming  free  in  Jubilee.  Yobody  is 
to  sell  his  farm  except  if  he  grows  poor ;  never  in  order  to  spec¬ 
ulate.  ' 

(XIII,  1-13)  :  The  Tribe  of  Levi,  though  it  had  no  (regular, 
compact  territory)  share  in  the  country,  nevertheless  had  towms 
and  suburbs  for  their  dwellings  allotted  to  them,  viz,  the  six 
cities  of  refuge  and  forty- two  towns,  besides  (scattered  among 
all  the  other  tribes).  These  surrounding  suburbs  and  fields 
consisted  of  3,000  cubits  on  all  sides,  from  the  city  walls  out¬ 
side,  viz,  1,000  cubits  as  free  space  and  2,000  for  gardens, 
pastures  and  vineyards.  The  cemetery  was  over  and  above,  be¬ 
yond  that  limit.  These  proportions  were  not  to  be  changed. 
The  Levites  had  at  any  moment  the  privilege  of  redeeming  their 
sold  property,  without  limitation.  Maimonides  opines  that  of 
all  the  other  conquests  made  after  Joshuah,  the  priests  and  Le¬ 
vites  had  their  share.  The  tribe  of  Levi  originally  had  no  spe¬ 
cial  territory  or  district  as  its  allotment,  because  they  had  been 
destined  and  set  apart,  expressly,  from  the  other  Israelites,  for 
God’s  service  in  the  Temple,  to  teach  in  his  ways  and  pro- 

‘rratyv  ^  psa  irn  ontop-  hi.  m.  25. 10— Jerem.  34. 8. 15. 17. 

JSo  were  the  Roman  Saturnalia,  on  the  25th  of  December,  as  now  in  the 
West.  So  was  the  Babylonian  New-Year,  about  the  beginning  of  October. 


86 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


nounce  judgment.  Therefore,  they  were  to  leave  off  all  worldly 
concerns.  They  did  not  fight  the  battles,  as  soldiers,  bodily,  and 
had  hence  no  share  in  the  booty.  They  were  the  army  of  the 
Lord,  and  he  provided  for  them,  as  written :  “I  am  thy  share 
and  thy  inheritance.”1  Even  so,  not  only  the  Levites,  but  any 
man  whose  generous  mind  and  cultivated  reason  have  induced 
him  to  consecrate  himself  to  divine  service,  to  knowledge  and 
righteousness,  and  throw  off  from  his  neck  the  yoke  of  worldli¬ 
ness,  he  is  sanctified,  holy  of  holies ;  God  is  his  share  forever 
and  aye.  God  will  provide  him  with  the  necessaries  of  life,  here 
and  hereafter :  “God  is  my  share,  my  cup  and  my  lot.”2 

Rabbinical  Slavery  Laws.  Maimonides,  Yad,  Hilkoth 

A  badim. 

(I,  1)  :  The  Hebrew  slave  spoken  of  in  the  Thora  is  an  Israel¬ 
ite  whom  a  judicial  Court  has  forcibly  sold,  or  who  has  sold 
himself  voluntarily,  viz,  when  he  had  stolen  and  is  unable  to 
pay  the  principal,  the  Court  sells  him.  This  is  the  only  case 
when  the  Court  sells  a  Hebrew.  When  a  man  becomes  very 
poor,  then  he  may  sell  himself,  but  that  is  only  to  save  himself 
from  starvation,  in  no  other  wise. 

(2)  :  A  woman,  if  even  a  thief,  cannot  be  sold;  nor  can  she 
sell  herself  into  serfdom. 

(3)  :  A  Jewish  man  can  sell  himself,  or  the  Court  can  sell 
him,  only  to  a  Jew  or  to  a  full  proselyte,  never  to  a  heathen 
or  a  non- Jewish  settler,  a  half-proselyte.3  But  if  he  did  sell 
himself  to  a  heathen,  even  to  idolatry,  the  sale  is  valid. 

(5)  :  A  Jewish  man  shall  not  be  sold  publicly,  standing  ex¬ 
posed  on  the  block  of  sale,4  as  a  heathen  slave  does,  but  it  must 
be  done  privately  and  decorously. 

(6) :  It  is  forbidden  to  overwork  and  bedrudge  5  a  Jewish 
servant,  or  impose  on  him  any  too  hard  or  any  useless  labor,  just 
to  keep  him  toiling. 

Tpbn  'jn 

J,pSn  D3D  n"' 

Ptyin  ui  piv  u 
‘NDD'Dn  ,npon  ptt 


RABBINICAL  SLAVERY  LAWS. 


87 


(7)  :  Hor  must  liis  master  give  him  any  work  specifically  be¬ 
longing  to  slaves,  as  taking  off  his  shoes,  or  assist  him  in  the 
bath,  but  he  must  treat,  him  simply  as  a  hired  workman,  nor 
make  him  do  any  other  work  than  the  one  he  was  accustomed  to. 

The  Hebrew  male  and  female  servant  must  eat,  drink,  dress 
and  live  as  comfortably  as  the  master.  .  .  .  Therefore,  the 
saying  is,  whoever  buys  a  Hebrew  servant,  buys  a  master  to  him¬ 
self  and  must  treat  him  as  a  brother.1 

(II,  1)  :  The  Hebrew  servant  or  slave  is  acquired  for  money, 
goods  or  a  written  contract.  If  the  Court  has  sold  him,  he  leaves 
and  goes  free  after  six  years,  from  the  day  of  his  sale,  and  the 
Year  of  Release  does  not  cancel  his  servitude,  whilst  the  Jubilee 
stops  it  at  once. 

(3)  :  A  man  selling  himself  for  more  than  six  years,  even  for 
ten  or  twenty,  and  the  Jubilee  steps  in,  his  servitude  is  at  once 
cancelled. 

(4)  :  A  fugitive  slave  must  (return  and)  complete  his  six 
years’  servitude.  The  Jubilee  alone  interrupts  it. 

(5)  :  If  he  was  sick  during  four  years  out  of  the  six,  he  must 
serve  other  four  years,  instead,  but  if  his  sickness  lasted  less 
than  four  years,  he  owes  no  further  service  beyond  the  original, 
stipulated  six  years. 

(6)  :  Who  sells  himself  to  a  heathen  goes  free  with  the  Jubilee. 

(7)  :  Who  is  sold  to  a  heathen,  his  relatives  shall  redeem  him ; 
if  not,  any  fellow- Jew  must  redeem  him. 

(8)  :  A  Hebrew  servant  for  six  or  more  years  has  ever  the 
privilege  of  liberating  himself  by  returning,  pro  rata,  the  part 
of  the  purchase-money  paid  for  him,  deducting  the  time  he  has 
served.  If  sold  to  a  heathen,  he  has  the  same  privilege  to  com¬ 
pute,  pro  rata,  and  return  the  purchase-money  till  the  Jubilee, 
whenever  he  can  dispose  of  the  means  of  redemption. 

(9)  :  If  the  Hebrew  has,  during  his  servitude,  increased  or 
decreased  in  value,  according  to  the  market  price  or  to  his  per¬ 
sonal  condition,  then  (he  ever  has  the  benefit  of  the  doubt)  the 
advantage  is  ever  given  him  to  return  the  smaller  price. 

(11)  :  The  master  liberating  his  servant  by  his  own  free  will 

'That  seems  to  be  the  American  view  too;  a  white  servant  is  rather  a 
companion;  that  is  the  democratic  principle;  it  is  Biblical. 


88 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


must  give  him  a  written  document  of  liberation ;  only  then  he  is 
free. 

(12)  :  A  Jewish  master  dying,  and  leaving  a  son,  the  Jewish 
servant  serves  the  son  just  as  he  did  the  father,  to  the  end  of 
the  term,  or  to  the  Jubilee,  or  to  his  redemption.  But  if  the 
master  leaves  any  other  heir  than  a  son,  the  servant  at  once 
leaves  free,  and  is  not  bound  to  serve  the  master’s  daughter,  or 
brother  etc.  Whilst  when  sold  to  a  heathen  or  a  proselyte,  the 
Jewish  servant  leaves  at  the  demise  of  the  master.  Thus  a 
Hebrew  servant  obtains  his  freedom;  after  six  years,  or  at  the 
Jubilee,  or  returning  pro  rata  the  purchase  money,  or  by  libera¬ 
tion-letter,  or  by  the  death  of  the  master  not  leaving  a  son. 

(Ill,  1  and  2)  :  The  master  must  support  the  lawfully  wed¬ 
ded  wife  of  his  servant  and  his  children,  though  these  are  not 
enslaved  to  him ;  nor  has  the  master  any  claim  upon  their  work 
or  earnings.  The  servant  ever  remains  the  rightful  owner  of 
the  work  of  his  wife  and  children,  and  of  all  belonging  to  them. 

(6)  :  He  who,  selling  himself,  prefers  to  stay  with  his  master 
after  the  six  years’  servitude,  is  not  bored  (in  the  ear  as  a  token 
of  permanent  slavery).  But  if  the  Court  had  sold  him,  he  is 
bored,  and  then  remains  to  the  Jubilee,  or  to  the  death  of  the 
master;  if  even  the  master  has  left  a  son,  he  needs  not  serve 
him. 

(8)  :  A  Kohen  (of  Ahron’s  descendants)  enslaved  is  never 
bored  in  the  ear ;  and  when  he  returns  home  he  can  no  longer 
minister  as  such  (he  loses  caste). 

(9)  The  boring  takes  place  in  the  presence  of  three  judges, 
and  by  the  master  personally — if  the  servant  insists  upon  stay¬ 
ing  with  him — in  the  very  last  moments  of  the  six  years;  but  if, 
after  its  expiration,  he  was  not  bored,  the  boring  takes  place 
only  when  it  tallies  with  the  letter  of  the  Law,  viz,  only  when 
the  servant  has  a  wife  who  is  a  Kanaanitish  woman  and  has 
children  by  her.  But  if  lie  has  no  children  by  her,  or  if  his 
master  has  no  wife  and  children,  then  the  servant  is  not  bored. 
If  his  master  has  a  wife  and  children,  but  the  servant  has  none, 
there  is  no  boring.  If  he  loves  his  matser,  but  his  master  loves 
not  him,  there  is  no  boring.  If  his  master  loves  him,  but  he  not 


RABBINICAL  SLAVERY  LAWS. 


89 


his  master,  there  is  no  boring.  If  he  is  sick  and  his  master  not, 
or  vice  versa,  or  if  both  are  sick,  the  boring  is  omitted.  The 
boring  of  the  ear,  an  obsolete  sign  of  slavery,  now  confined  to 
women,  is  thus  generally  dispensed  with,  by  simply  insisting 
upon  the  letter  of  the  Law,  the  rabbinical  method  of  disestab¬ 
lishing  a  law  out  of  time,  without  any  disrespect  to  the  Law¬ 
giver. 

(13)  :  A  woman  is  never  bored,  by  traditional  custom.  Male 
and  female  servants,  when  leaving  their  servitude,  are  given 
some  endowments  for  their  new  homes  by  the  old  master  from 
his  flocks,  granery  etc,  valuing  no  less  than  30  Sela. 

(IV,  1)  :  A  poor  father  may  sell  his  minor  daughter;  with 
the  beginning  of  the  signs  of  her  puberty  (over  12  years  old) 
he  can  no  longer  sell  her ;  but  he  can  give  her  to  wife  to  whom 
he  pleases ;  he  can  sell  her  only  if  thoroughly  poor,  even  without 
a  garment,  and  as  soon  as  he  is  again  able,  he  must  redeem  her. 
He  cannot  sell  her  after  she  has  been  once  married. 

(4)  :  A  female  servant  serves  six  years.  She  is  freed  by  the 
Jubilee,  or  by  the  death  of  her  master  (though  leaving  a  son), 
or  by  redemption,  or  by  document  of  liberation,  just  as  a  man- 
sen-ant  is. 

(5)  :  Moreover*,  she  goes  free  at  her  puberty  (over  12  years 
old).  Then,  according  to  tradition,  she  returns  to  the  parental 
house  until  she  becomes  a  full  woman  (12  and  half-year),  when 
she  is  her  own  mistress. 

(7)  :  If  the  master  or  his  son  has  wooed  her,  then  she  is  be¬ 
trothed ;  she  passes  over  into  their  jurisdiction,  and  can  be 
freed  only  by  the  death  of  the  husband  or  by  his  letter  of  di¬ 
vorce.  Wedding  her  is  preferable  to  liberating  her.  He  tells 
her  in  the  presence  of  two  witnesses :  “Thou  art  herewith  conse¬ 
crated  to  me,”  or,  “Thou  art  my  wife,”  or  “Thou  art  betrothed 
to  me ;”  that  is  the  formula  of  making  her  pass  from  serfdom  to 
freedom  and  wifehood. 

(8)  Such  marriage  wooing  must  be  with  her  consent.  Such 
betrothal  constitutes  no  full  marriage  as  yet,  until  the  wedding 
ceremony  (Hupa)  has  taken  place.  If  neither  the  master  nor 


90 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


his  son  has  wedded  her,  nor  was  she  redeemed,  then  she  goes 
out  free  at  her  puberty.  (A  free-born  woman,  ever  free !) 

(10)  :  Her  master  cannot  sell  her  or  marry  her  to  some  third 
person.  He  cannot  sell  a  male  servant,  either,  nor  give  him 
away  as  a  gift. 

(V,  1) :  A  heathen  servant  or  slave  is  acquired  in  five  ways, 
and  he  regains  his  liberty  in  three  ways.  He  is  acquired  by 
money,  by  contract  and  by  possession,  a  presumption  of  legiti¬ 
mate  ownership,1  or  by  exchange,  or  removal.  He  acquires  his 
liberty  for  money,  by  liberation-document  or  by  (the  loss  of)  a 
limb,  viz,  when  the  master  beats  his  slave  with  intent  so  that  he 
loses  one  of  the  twenty-four  chief  limbs  of  his  body,  then  he  is 
free.  (The  loss  of  a  tooth  is  a  plea  for  freedom.) 

(VIII,  1)  :  Selling  one’s  servant  or  slave  to  a  heathen,  that 
makes  him  at  once  free,  and  then  the  Court  compels  his  ex¬ 
master  to  buy  him  back  from  the  heathen,  even  at  ten  times  his 
value,  and  gives  him  his  liberation-letter.  If  he  pawns  him, 
for  money  received  from  a  heathen  creditor,  with  the  express 
condition  that  if  he  does  not  pay  the  money  at  a  certain  time 
the  slave  is  forfeited  to  him,  then  that  slave  is  at  once  free  and 
leaves  (both  masters). 

(IX,  1)  :  When  an  Israelite  lives  with  his  Ivanaanite  female 
slave,  his  child  by  that  woman  is  a  Kanaanitish  slave  in  every 
respect,  and  is  ever  treated  as  such. 

(4)  :  A  heathen  king  making  captives  or  allowing  (his  gen¬ 
eral)  to  make  such,  on  account  of  war,  or  of  disobedience,  or  of 
non-payment  of  taxes,  and  he  sells  these  captives  or  prisoners, 
that  sale  is  valid,  and  the  sold  prisoner  is  to  be  treated  as  a 
heathen  slave  in  every  respect. 

(6)  :  A  woman  may  buy  female  slaves,  not  male  ones,  and 
avoid  evil  talk.  The  heathen  slave  never  goes  free.  But  if  the 
master  frees  him  spontaneously  he  is  free,  and  he  must  give 
him  a  letter  of  liberation.  It  is  morally  good  and  meritorious 
to  liberate  such  a  one  for  some  religious  purpose  or  as  a  charita- 


rmrn 


RABBINICAL  SLAVERY  LAWS. 


91 


ble  act,  as  for  having  a  quorum  for  worship1  etc.  Again,  it  is 
meritorious  to  free  a  female  heathen  slave,  if  by  that  her  moral 
character  will  improve.  Nay,  her  master  may  even  be  com¬ 
pelled  to  liberate  her  and  remove  a  stumbling  block  out  of  the 
way. 

(8) :  Legally,  it  is  allowed  to  have  a  heathen  slave  work 
hard.  But  true  piety  and  wisdom  require  that  a  man  shall  be 
merciful  and  beneficent,  not  impose  too  heavy  a  yoke  upon  his 
slave  nor  vex  him ;  and  he  must  feed  him  well.  The  ancient 
sages  imparted  to  their  slaves  of  all  they  ate  and  drank,  gave 
food  to  their  slaves  and  cattle  even  before  they  themselves  had 
eaten.  Nor  is  it  allowed  to  use  them  with  hard,  unfriendly 
words  or  gestures ;  their  duty  being  to  work,  not  to  bear  insults. 
One  shall  not  scold  and  anger  them,  but  speak  with  them  kindly 
and  listen  to  their  remonstrances.  So  Jobe  (31.15)  says:  Did 
I  ever  refuse  to  listen  to  my  male  and  female  slave  when  remon¬ 
strating  with  me  ?  Has  not  the  same  womb  formed  me  and 
him  ?  Indeed,  cruelty  and  overbearing  are  befitting  but  the 
heathen  and  idolator.  While  the  descendants  of  Abraham,  and 
the  Israelites  to  whom  God  gave  .  the  Thora  and  his  command¬ 
ments,  they  are  righteous  and  merciful  towards  all.  We  must 
aspire  to  God’s  own  attributes :  “Who  is  merciful  to  all  his 
creatures ;  who  practices  mercy,  will  find  mercy.” 

‘The  Talmud  brings  such  a  story,  a  leading  Rabbi  liberating  his  slave  for 
such  a  purpose,  instantaneously. 


92 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

“Thou  Shalt  Be  No  Talebearer.” 

Another  negative,  ethical  lesson  of  humanity  is  II  M.,  23.1 : 
“Thou  shalt  not  carry  around  false  rumors,  be  no  talebearer,1 
nor  make  common  hand  with  the  wicked,  as  a  rapacious  wit¬ 
ness.”  Conspire  not  with,  be  no  accomplice  of,  mischievous  tes¬ 
timony.  To  steal,  rob  and  murder,  to  commit  perjury,  forgery 
and  incendiarism,  is  generally  recognized  as  heinous,  criminal 
and  punished  severely.  But  there  are  things  more  dangerous  to 
the  peace,  happiness  and  prosperity  of  the  individual,  the  family 
and  the  community  at  large.  There  is  a  dagger  so  subtle  and 
smooth,  a  venom  so  sublimized  and  refined,  so  treacherous  and 
fiendish,  that  it  penetrates  the  coat  of  mail  of  the  hero,  the  se¬ 
cluded  study  of  the  scientist,  the  equanimity  of  the  sage,  the 
silken  robes  of  the  great  lady  and  the  delicate  crimson  of  inno¬ 
cence;  that  blasts  and  corrodes  good  repute,  the  honor,  soul  and 
body  of  the  maiden,  the  patriot,  the  wife  and  the  friend; 
that  kills  with  a  look,  as  the  basilisk’s  eye,  as  the  aspect  of 
Medusa  on  the  fabled  shield  of  Perseus,  in  Homer. — That  is, 
scattering  venomous  gossip,  false  reports  and  talebearing,  carry¬ 
ing  around  and  giving  credit  to  mere  rumors,  conspiring  with 
mischievous  testimony,  slander  and  calumny.  As  there  is  a 
genius  for  each  activity,  a  talent  for  every  art,  even  so  there  is 
an  innate,  hellish  capacity  for  gossip  and  mischief.  It  needs 
but  a  stout  tongue,  a  brazen  face  and  a  cold  heart,  swelled  with 
jealousy.  It  delights  to  whet  its  teeth  against  the  most  deserv¬ 
ing,  as  the  wasps  prick  at  the  sweetest  flowers.  It  cajoles  the 
worst  instincts,  the  feeling  of  envy  and  humiliation  at  another’s 
superiority;  the  most  vain  and  incapable  are  the  bitterest  at  the 
sight  of  worth.  They  will  pardon  stupidity,  meanness  and 
crime,  never  will  they  nobility  and  superiority.  Quick-footed 
they  run  from  neighbor  to  neighbor,  around  the  corner  and  be- 


sicr  yov  Ntrn  xb 


BE  NO  TALEBEARER. 


93 


hind  the  staircase,  repeating  over  and  over  the  same  tale,  with 
increasing  variations  and  gradual  exaggerations ;  first  in  a  whis¬ 
per,  a  hint,  winking  with  the  eye,  a  motion  of  the  hand,  a  ma¬ 
licious  smile,  and,  if  accepted,  soon  with  a  torrent  of  words,  yea, 
a  vocabulary  of  oaths;  enlisting  the  supposed  inborn  envy,  the 
vanity,  the  invidiousness  of  the  interlocutor.  Thus,  in  a  few  mo¬ 
ments  they  demolish  and  wither  the  good  repute  of  a  virtuous 
woman,  the  integrity  of  a  judge,  the  good  standing  of  a  public 
man,  an  authority  acquired  during  a  generation  of  hard  work 
and  noble  endeavor.  The  very  best  of  mankind  has  been  stimg  to 
death  by  that  subtle,  poisonous  hydra,  slander,  misrepresentation. 
And  for  such  a  crime,  nevertheless,  the  law  has  no  punishment, 
society  no  frown  and  no  scorn ;  hell  cools  its  fires  for  such  a  cow¬ 
ardly,  contemptible,  wordy  misdeed.  ISTo !  it  is  rather  patted 
and  courted  and  praised,  as  wit  and  humor,  as  a  fine  art,  a 
social  talent,  the  best  salt  to  season  dull  society,  to  amuse  the 
oversatiated,  the  blase ;  what  would  society  do  without  gossip ! 
To  that  fashionable  and  most  dangerous  vice  alludes  our  verse : 
“Do  not  carry  around  false  tales.”  There  is  a  fabulous  mon¬ 
ster,  the  basilisk,  that  fastens  his  eyes  upon  the  bird  on  the  tree 
and  charms  it  to  the  spot,  until  it  is  caught  and  devoured ;  that 
basilisk  is  fashionable  gossip. 

Kindred,  nefarious,  secret  social  vices  are  alluded  to  and 
warned  against  in  III  M.,  19.11-18,  not  identical  with,  but  of 
the  same  tribe  as  the  above,  variations  thereof:  “Ye  shall  not 
semble  and  sneak  (steal1),  deny,  insinuate  or  belie  each  other. 
Ye  shall  not  violate  and  deprive  one  another,  or  withhold  the 
wages  of  the  workman.  Ye  shall  not  curse  the  deaf,  nor  put  a 
stumbling-block  in  the  way  of  the  blind,  nor  be  unrighteous  in 
judgment,  nor  favor  the  poor,  nor  spare  the  great,  nor  be  a  tale¬ 
bearer,  nor  stand  indifferent  at  your  neighbor’s  blood.  .  . 
Thou  shalt  bear  no  secret  hatred,  nor  entertain  any  grudge  and 
revengefulness,  but  expostulate  frankly  with,  and  love  thy 
brother  as  thyself.”  This  noble  nineteenth  chapter  of  Leviticus 
is  not  a  repetition  of  the  Decalogue,  but  an  expansion  and  broad- 

h313Jn  here  alludes  at  moral  stealing,  Insinuating  untruth. 


94 


HUMANITY.  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


ening  of  the  morals  and  more  refined  ethics  of  Mosaism,  the 
higher  morality,  not  only  in  deeds  and  facts,  but  in  feelings,  mo¬ 
tives  and  their  psychological  results.  They  have  the  same  root 
and  grow  on  the  same  stem  as  tale-bearing,  preparing  and  con¬ 
cocting  of  false  testimony.  A  wicked  heart,  an  evil  eye,  malice, 
envy,  jealousy,  invidiousness,  the  fiendish  impulse  to  do  harm 
with  an  innocent  mien,  without  incurring  any  danger  to  self.1 
That  crime  is  so  subtle  and  refined  that  human  justice  cannot 
cope  with  it.  It  is  mischief,  cowardice  and  wrong  in  one  breath. 
God  alone  can !  It  is  the  tree  upon  which  all  the  sins,  ills  and 
crimes  grow,  the  child  of  idleness,  invidiousness,  vanity  and 
mendacity;  desire  of  spoliation  and  supplanting,  enjoyment  by 
the  torment  of  others.  The  Pentateuch  brings  us  many  sad  il¬ 
lustrations  of  the  danger  of  evil  tongues,  malevolence  and  kindred 
vices.  The  Patriarch  Jacob  “wished  to  live  in  peace  when  there 
sprang  upon  him  misfortune  through  gossip.2  Joseph,  spoiled 
by  gossip  and  idle  talk,  innocently  aroused  the  jealousy  of  the 
brethren,  who,  suspicious  and  frenzied  by  his  dreams,  tore  him 
away  from  home,  dragged  him  into  slavery,  broke  the  heart  of 
the  father  and  plunged  their  home  into  mourning.  Behold  King 
David,  his  fine  parts,  heroism,  toils,  dangers  and  marvelous  na¬ 
tional  success ;  gradually  getting  old  and  weak,  he  wished  to  en¬ 
joy  some  rest.  But  evil  tongues  nestled  in  his  family.  Amnon 
and  his  half-sister,  then  Absolom  and  Achitophel ;  seduction, 
murder,  rebellion  and  adultery  follow.  David,  fleeing  before  his 
rebellious  son,  recovers  his  throne,  but  never  his  happiness.  Gos¬ 
sip  has  ruined  it.  Or  look  to  modern  fiction:  Franz  Moor 
calumniates  and  ousts  his  brother,  murdering  him,  without  steel 
or  poison,  by  mere  gossip  and  calumny ;  he  deceives  and  breaks 
the  heart  of  the  old  father ;  he  then  imprisons  and  starves  him, 
and,  in  despair,  finally  commits  suicide.  Behold  Shakespeare’s 
Othello,  so  noble,  generous  and  strong,  is  entrapped  by  evil 
tongues,  by  Yago,  weaving  a  mischievous  cobweb-handkerchief 
into  a  cable  rope,  to  entrap  a  mad  lion ;  pure,  sweet,  Desdemona 

*py  nS  most  rrs  nnnoi  nSux  Prov.  30.2. 

2Rashi  to  I.  M.  37  C)DV  ^  ntJI  |*Dp1  3pjT  t?p3 


MATTHEW  ARNOLD.  THE  WRONG  MAJORITY. 


95 


offers  the  most  tragic  illustration  of  our  theme.  She  has  mis¬ 
laid  a  kerchief,  an  heirloom,  and  this  gossip  spins  out  to  faith¬ 
lessness.  She  was  guilty  of  a  serious  fault,  elopement,  and  was 
punished  for  a  crime  made  up  by  evil  tongues,  thus  dying  in¬ 
nocently,  the  spectator  pardons  her  former  indiscretion. 

Matthew  Arnold.  The  Wrong  Majority. 

Whilst  our  analyzed  verses  aim  at  secret,  mischievous  pro¬ 
pensities,  fruitful  of  baneful  consequences,  II  M.,  23.2,  hits  at 
a  public,  ostentatious  weakness,  in  another  way  dangerous  and 
far-reaching:  “Thou  shalt  not  side  with  the  many  for  evil,  nor 
shalt  thou,  in  a  litigation,  incline  after  the  multitude,  to  preju¬ 
dice  right.”  The  Rabbis  deduced  from  this,  or  rather  util¬ 
ized  this  verse  for  a  legal  maxim,  viz :  That  whilst,  generally,  a 
majority  cf  one  decides,  nevertheless  on  a  death  verdict  a  major¬ 
ity  of  two  are  necessary  to  punish  with  capital  punishment, 
whilst  a  one-majority  suffices  for  acquittal.  In  its  own,  literal, 
general,  humanitarian  sense  our  verse  is  pregnant  with  great  im¬ 
port  :  Do  not  from  sheer,  wicked  cunning,  or  imbecile  weakness 
shout  with  the  crowd;  do  not  blindly  follow  the  majority;  be  no 
mental  sycophant,  but  adhere  to  your  own  opinion,  if  approved 
by  your  conscience  and  reason ;  rather  fail  with  the  honest  few 
than  triumph  with  the  thoughtless  many.  In  the  long  run  is 
reason  stronger  than  prejudice,  than  the  blind  multitude.  In 
recent  times  it  was  Matthew  Arnold  who  re-emphasized  this  im¬ 
portant  Mosaic  lesson.  The  small  minority,  the  “remnant,”  is 
right ;  it  is  permeated  with  the  divine  spirit  and  rules  mankind’s 
destinies.  It  is  not  the  majority,  the  multitude,  engrossed  by 
the  cares  of  the  hour,  that  sees  clearly ;  nor  is  it  the  minority  of 
today  that  is  right,  not  the  accidental  minority  of  today  and 
tomorrow  again  the  majority,  as  Whigs  and  Tories  in  England, 
or  Republicans  and  Democrats  in  America ;  both  shift  as  the 
sands  of  Zahara,  both  parties  run  after  the  majority,  and  suc¬ 
ceed  or  fail  by  mere  chance;  neither  of  the  official,  two  halves 
of  the  nation  are  infallible,  and  neither  represents  the  true  di¬ 
vine  spirit,  the  driving  element  of  history,  the  leading  genius  of 
mental  and  ethical  progress.  jSTo;  it  is  the  mere  remnant  that 


9G 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


harbors  the  truth,  the  “ saving  remnant,”  so  called  by  Matthew 
Arnold  in  his  pregnant  lectures  delivered  in  New  York  some  20 
years  ago;  lectures  on  “Numbers,”  full  of  wisdom  and  human¬ 
ity,  but  misconstrued  by  the  multitude.  These  superior  dis¬ 
courses  about  the  saving  remnant  had  for  their  text  our  Mosaic 
verse:  “Thou  shalt  not  side  with  the  many  for  evil.”  In  aristoc¬ 
racies  there  rules  the  minority;  in  democracies  the  majority,  but 
neither  is  right ;  only  the  remnant  is  the  real  moving  force  of  the 
divine  chariot  of  human  destiny  and  government.  What  is  the 
great  frequent  vice  of  democracy?  No  conviction,  no  settled 
opinion,  no  character;  the  individual  voter  is  entirely  absorbed 
by  the  craving  for  the  many:  “What  is  your  conviction,  sir?” 
“I  am  with  the  majority.”  “Speak  out,  what  is  your  opinion, 
sir  ?”  “I  want  first  to  hear  my  fellow-citizens  pronounce  on  the 
case.”  That  is  just  what  our  verse  stigmatizes.  “I  propose  this 
and  that  .  .  .  but  if  you  don’t  like  it  I  shall  propose  the  con¬ 
trary.”  That  is  very  cunning,  but  it  denotes  an  entire  lack  of 
character  and  of  principle,  that  will  never  do  good  to  anyone  ex¬ 
cept  the  timeserver.  Hamlet  uses  his  persiflage  on  the  as- 
sentators :  “Do  you  see  yonder  cloud  shaped  like  a  camel  ?” 
“Yes,  Prince;  like  a  camel.”  “No,  sirs!  no;  like  a  weasel!” 
“You  are  right,  Prince,  like  a  weasel.”  “I  am  mistaken,  sirs; 
it  is  like  a  whale!”  “Yes,  Prince;  very  like  a  whale.”  Thus 
conversed,  formerly,  princes  with  their  courtiers ;  now  the  ma¬ 
jority  with  abject  office-seekers.  The  honest  man,  the  true,  up¬ 
right  friend  of  the  people,  comes  out  with  his  true  colors ;  he  ar¬ 
gues  and  backs  his  opinion  with  truthful,  cogent  reasons,  and  if 
failing  to  please  the  majority,  he  steps  back,  awaiting  that  time 
will  justify  him.  Whilst  the  demagogue  is  a  mere  mouthpiece, 
a  rhetorician ;  selfish,  cunning  and  shallow,  ever  on  the  alert 
where  the  wind  blows,  how  to  please  and  ingratiate  himself 
with  the  many,  sitting  between  two  stools,  with  no  other  object 
in  view  but  to  head  the  majority,  be  their  mouthpiece,  wherever 
they  may  go,  espying  the  drift  of  the  crowd  and  ride  it  by  es¬ 
pousing  its  cause.  Matthew  Arnold,  following  the  meaning  of 
our  verse  in  his  said,  fine  lectures  on  “Numbers,”  showed  that: 
There  is  “but  little  moral  good  in  governing  majorities;”  their 


THE  WRONG  MAJORITY. 


97 


wheat  is  buried  under  their  weed.  Camp-followers  ever  over¬ 
crowd  them  and  outcrowd  the  honest  elements.  With  the  little 
original  good  as  the  kernel,  creeps  in  a  host  of  evil,  and  this 
evil  must  be  eliminated  by  the  infinitesimal  remnant,  the  rem¬ 
nant  of  both,  of  the  majority  and  of  the  minority;  ©f  both  par¬ 
ties  is  the  majority  without  any  real,  ethical  value.  The  major¬ 
ity  of  both,  the  dominant  and  the  opposition  wing,  confers  office, 
but  all  good  government  really  comes  from  the  remnant-mi¬ 
nority,  and  that  remnant,  as  stimulant  and  check,  must  be  very 
strong  in  moral  energy  and  principle  in  order  to  form  the  cen¬ 
tripetal  force,  the  nucleus  for  the  masses  to  gravitate  towards  it. 
The  fact  is,  the  wise,  good  and  honest  are  ever  a  minority,  and 
such  small  numbers  are  present  in  both  parties,  while  the  crowd 
shift  to  and  fro  and  side  wherever  they  expect  victory  and  office, 
and  that  crowd  it  is  that  makes  majorities.  “Vox  populi,  vox 
Dei,”  would  be  true  only  then,  when  all  knew  what  they  voted 
for,  i.  e.,  if  all  were  wise  and  honest !  But  mostly  the  large  num¬ 
bers  are  led  by  a  rhetorician  or  a  demagogue,  and  are  therefore 
no  criterion.  Hence,  follow  thou,  the  Thora  says,  thy  own,  hon¬ 
est  feeling,  thy  own  opinion.  Be  not  the  echo  of  the  many  for 
evil.  Utter  your  own  opinions,  each,  individually,  with  knowl¬ 
edge  of  facts  and  sincerity,  then  the  crowd  will  follow  you ;  you 
will  lead  the  majority,  not  slavishly  follow  it. 

“Return  Thy  Enemy's  Ox.” 

(II  M.,  23.4)  :  “If  thou  meet  thy  enemy’s  ox  or  ass  going 
astray,  thou  shalt  surely  bring  him  back  to  him  ...  If  thou 
seest  the  ass  of  thy  enemy  succumbing  under  his  burden  .  .  . 
thou  shalt  surely  assist  him  to  unload  him.”1  The  same  sense 
is  in  its  parallel  passage,  V  M.,  22.1-5 :  “Thou  shalt  not  see  thy 
neighbor’s  ox  or  his  lamb  go  astray,  thou  looking  away;  no, 
thou  shalt,  indeed,  bring  them  back  to  him  .  .  .  The  same  do 
concerning  any  other  thing  he  loses  and  thou  findest,  do  not 
look  away  .  .  .  Thou  shalt  not  see  thv  brother’s  ass  or  ox 

hoy  3Uyn  Dlty  With  Moses  Mendelssohn,  I  prefer  this  interpretation  as 
its  real  sense. 


98 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


prostrate  on  the  road,  and  thou  turn  (indifferently)  away; 
no,  thou  shalt  surely  assist  him  to  lift  them  up.”  Here  are 
primitive  environments  contemplated,  an  intrinsic  proof  of  the 
antiquity  of  the  law ;  a  primitive,  agricultural  country,  farmer- 
citizens,  few  travelers  and  hostelries.  The  battle  for  existence 
is  arduous  and  bitter.  Here  a  rival’s  dearest  goods  are  perish¬ 
ing,  and  a  man  may  well  be  tempted  and  say :  I  shall  do  nothing 
and  be  rid  of  a  dangerous  competitor  close  at  my  side.  A  prima 
facie  interest  would  bid:  Utilize  the  opportunity  and  get  rid 
of  an  enemy  and  a  rival  with  one  stroke.  That  is  often  done 
nowadays,  on  the  exchange,  the  market  and  the  street.  But, 
in  the  long  run,  revenge  and  rivalship  is  a  poor  policy.  Wisdom 
advises:  Assist  thy  rival,  and  you  will  best  rid  yourself  of  his 
rivalship.  “Disarm  your  enemy,  by  showing  him  that  you  are 
not  his  enemy,”  advise  the  Bible,  Spinoza  and  Kant.  You  may 
make  him  yet  a  friend ;  at  any  rate,  you  take  away  his  sting. 
Otherwise,  you  sink  it  ever  deeper  into  his  breast ;  whilst  silent 
vindictiveness,  chuckling  malice,  is  always  cowardly  and  con¬ 
temptible.  Besides,  most  of  enmities  are  originally  of  small 
import,  often  contrived  by  gossip,  swelled  by  time,  mere  trifles 
and  petty  mole  holes ;  wherefore  swell  them  to  mountains  ?  Do 
a  small  favor  and  get  rid  of  an  enemy,  or  oblige  him  and  gain  a 
brother. 

Again,  reflect:  Buddha,  Jesus,  Francois  d’ Assise  and  Spi¬ 
noza  advised :  “Love  thy  enemy.”  Was  that  from  love  or  rather 
contempt?  To  love  an  enemy  is  impossible,  I  am  afraid,  except 
if  I  despise  him,  and  what  I  despise  I  may  pity,  but  pity  is  not 
love ;  love  is  unqualified  sympathy,  united  to  respect  and  es¬ 
teem.  Love  thy  enemy  is  a  Utopia,  a  maxim  for  the  other 
Utopia,  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  or  communism  on  earth;  it  is 
a  psychological  impossibility,  just  as  for  the  flame  to  drop,  or  the 
stone  to  rise,  is  a  physical  impossibility.  Mosaism  asks  not  the 
impossible.  There  is  no  need  to  love  our  enemy  or  our  rival; 
but  disarm  and  placate  him,  prudence  and  generosity  advises 
that;  give  him  a  lesson  of  “live  and  let  live,”  of  well-understood 
egoism;  egoism  corroborated  by  wise  altruism,  and  that  will 


NO  FAVORS  IN  JUSTICE. 


99 


do  good  to  you,  to  him  and  to  all  the  social  body.1  Buddha, 
Jesus,  Spinoza  etc.  advised  one-sided  altruism,  self-sacrifice: 
“Since  human  life  is  worth  nothing.”  But  this  is  not  the  view 
of  Mosaism.  No !  life  is  worth  living.  The  Thora  legislates  for 
life,  for  this  world  first.  Do  thy  duty,  “that  thou  mayest  be 
happy.”  “Perform  the  Law  and  earthly  blessings  will  be 
thine,”  is  its  constant  refrain.  “God  saw  that  all  is  good.”  Op¬ 
timism  !  This  is  the  Mosaic  standpoint ;  hence  he  teaches  an  in¬ 
telligent  egoism,  wise,  true  self-interest  is  ever  fully  reconciled 
and  combined  with  sympathy  for  others.  Tocqueville  believed 
“the  well-understood  interest  is  an  American  philosophy.”  No ; 
it  is  Mosaic,  humane,  universal.  It  teaches  “honesty  as  the  best 
policy”  on  this  earth  already,  not  only  in  heaven. 

No  Favors  in  Justice. 

(II  M.,  23.3-6)  :  “Thou  shalt  not  favor  the  poor  in  litiga¬ 
tion;  thou  shalt  not  bend  the  judgment  of  thy  poor  when 
pleading.”2  A  fine,  humanitarian  remark,  not  to  overdo  on 
either  side,  ever  to  hold  the  middle  course  and  avoid  the  ex¬ 
tremes  ;  a  doctrine  taught  by  Socrates  and  Aristotle  also.  Con¬ 
cerning  the  poor  and  the  weak,  men  are  inclined  to  be  partial, 
one  way  or  another,  either  sympathizing  with  the  helpless  or 
despising  him  for  that,  in  either  case  to  prejudice  him,  favor¬ 
ably  or  unfavorably;  and  both  are  wrong.  Be  impartial,  dis¬ 
pense  strict,  straight  justice,  inflexible  to  pity  or  neglect,  with 
the  eyes  looking  to  the  cause,  not  to  the  man.  We  have  above 
alluded  to  higher  ideals  of  sympathy.  Buddha  gave  away  a 
kingdom  and  devoted  himself  to  alleviate  human  misery.  Hillel 
gave  to  an  impoverished  nobleman  a  villa,  a  horse  and  a  foot¬ 
man  ;  nay,  made  himself  his  needed  footman  on  a  sudden  emer¬ 
gency.  The  Babbis  forbid  the  creditor  to  pass  in  sight  of  the 
insolvent  debtor,  for  fear  of  shaming  him.  Another  Rabbi  of¬ 
fered,  incognito  and  secretly,  a  daily  allowance  to  a  poor  man ; 
once  that  man  was  nigh  detecting  him  on  that  clandestine  ehar- 

'Tocqueville,  “Democratie  Americana,  ”  I'interet  bien  entendu,  page  213. 

aIn  our  rendition  of  the  sacred  texts,  we  pay  chiefly  attention  to  its  sense 
and  intent,  not  purely  verbal  or  casuistical. 


100 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


ity,  when  the  Rabbi  hastily  ran  away  and — fell  into  a  burning 
furnace!  There  are  many  more  Agadic  tales  of  that  sort.  We 
have  alluded  to  the  charity,  the  love  and  forgiveness  of  the  Kaza- 
rean  moralist,  as  also  to  Spinoza  and  Kant’s  ethics,  advising  to 
love  one’s  enemy  and  thus  disarm  him.  All  that  self-sacrifice  and 
placability  is  grand,  sublime  to  the  sky,  yes,  even  to  the  sky,  but 
not  on  earth ;  it  is  not  real,  human,  possible ;  closely  considered, 
society  would  not  thrive  by  it ;  hence  it  is  a  Utopia,  from  fairy¬ 
land.  These  are  virtues  measured  by  angelic  proportions,  not 
at  human  size.  As  the  fabled  hanging  gardens  of  Semiramis, 
we  look  up  to  them,  wonder  at  and  admire  them,  but  cannot 
reach  them.  We  are  asked  to  divest  ourselves  of  our  earthly 
bodies,  but  we  cannot.  Love  your  enemy — and  hate  yourself ! 
Give  all  to  the  poor  and  the  indolent,  and  have  your  children 
starve !  That  is  making  virtue  vicious  by  going  to  the  extreme. 
There  is  a  pointed  saying  by  Lessing,  well  applicable,  with  some 
slight  change,  to  this  case:  “If  a  divine  genius  would  offer  me, 
in  one  hand,  human,  possible  truth  and  virtue,  and  in  the  other, 
angelic,  impossible  ones,  I  would  say:  Genius,  let  me  have  the 
possible  one,  and  the  divine  one  keep  for  thyself,  keep  for  an¬ 
gels.”  Epicure  said :  “Be  not  too  angry  with  the  wrongdoer, 
for  he  is  ever  acting  according  to  his  nature,  just  as  the  flame 
burns,  or  the  tiger  lacerates.”  On  that  ground  Spinoza,  too, 
counseled  equanimity  towards  the  wicked,  for  they  simply  follow 
their  nature.  There  is  nothing  to  praise,  nor  to  blame ;  every¬ 
one  acts  according  to  his  nature;  there  is  no  moral  freedom 
for  man,  as  there  is  none  for  beasts  and  things.  Alack !  if  really 
so,  it  is  very  sad,  for  earth-born  and  civilized  society  is  a  fail¬ 
ure.  Maybe  that,  in  punishing  crime,  the  judge,  rather,  should 
bear  in  mind  the  possibility  of  such  a  view,  and  rather  pity, 
condone  and  admonish,  than  hate  and  punish  the  criminal 
wretch  as,  perhaps,  the  victim  more  than  the  author  of  his 
misdeed.  But,  in  real  life,  we  have  to  accept  human  responsi¬ 
bility  as  a  fact  or  society  woud  perish.  To  love  my  enemy  and 
let  starve  my  children  is  poor  ethics,  neither  written  in  my  heart 
nor  in  my  reason ;  it  is  not  in  the  Sacred  Writ.  All  that  it  asks 
is:  Be  impartial,  give  the  poor  his  due,  and  probably  he  will 


NO  FAVOKS  IN  JUSTICE. 


101 


never  ask  more ;  he  will  never  become  a  pauper.  While  all  these 
above-mentioned  noble  idealities  are  exaggerations,  impossibili¬ 
ties  here  on  this,  our  earth.  We  feel  it  and  daily  experience  it; 
love  only  elicits  love  and  bate  produces  bate.  We  may,  making 
an  effort,  condone,  pity,  pardon,  even  assist,  our  enemy,  but  we 
cannot  love  him.  A  flame  is  kindled  by  a  flame,  not  by  snow. 
Buddha,  Nazareth,  the  Talmudic  idealists,  the  Mediaeval  ro¬ 
manticists,  down  to  the  ethics  of  The  Hague  and  the  Konigs- 
berg  philosophers  have  erected  monasteries,  churches,  schools  of 
learning  and  of  philosophy.  Mosaism  has  created  a  people,  a 
state,  a  human  polity ;  a  polity  gradually  accepted  and  practical¬ 
ly  acted  upon  by  the  present,  entire  civilized  society  all  over  the 
world,  Japan  and  China,  India  and  Egypt  included.  This  Mo¬ 
saic  policy  is,  the  well-understood,  interest,  an  intelligent,  well- 
reasoned,  farsighted,  Ego-Altruism,  egoism  and  altruism  fully 
combined  and  harmonized.  The  individual  interest  is  best 
served,  and  then  alone  served,  when  in  equilibrium  and  fully 
counterbalanced  by  the  interest  of  all,  in  the  long  run.  We  feel 
and  see  that  Society  needs  work,  effort,  or  it  would  perish,  and 
its  only  stimulant  is,  and  must  be,  property,  self-interest,  not 
communism,  nor  self-sacrifice.  We  feel  that  agriculture,  indus¬ 
try,  family,  creation  of  wealth,  education,  need  responsibility, 
right  and  duty  and  reciprocity  as  their  motive.  Self-sacrifice, 
altruism  alone,  without  egoism,  will  make  dupes  of  one  part  of 
society,  cunning  foxes  and  robbers  of  the  other  part,  and  at  last 
both  will  perish  by  starvation.  The  founders  of  Christianity 
have  set  a  great  example  of  the  one-sided,  altruistic,  all-yielding 
doctrine  of  Love.  So  have  those  of  Buddhism,  and  Spinoza’s 
‘‘ethics.”  But  scant  and  rare  were  those  who  emulated  them.  The 
generality  of  people  “stole  the  coat  and  also  the  cloak,”  “smote 
on  the  right  and  the  left  cheek ;”  for  every  one  true  saint,  for  one 
St.  Francois  d’ Assise  or  Sainte  Genevieve  or  Joan  of  Arc,  the 
calendar  contains  one  hundred  frauds,  hypocrites  and  rogues, 
throwing  over  their  wicked  shoulders  the  mantle  of  Elijah,  and 
holding  them  up  to  the  veneration  and  the  admiration  of  the  ig¬ 
norant.  Nay,  more,  we  see  in  our  own  times  and  with  our  own 
eyes  such  frauds  and  rogues  sanctified  and  canonized  and  pushed 


102 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


into  the  “hall  of  fame,”  whilst  without  their  masks  they  would  go 
to  execration  and  the  hall  of  shame.  Gibbon  has  shown  how 
saints  were  forged  and  smuggled  into  history.1  But  even  consid¬ 
ering  the  generality  of  men,  the  saints  are  rare.  It  is  a  vain  at¬ 
tempt  to  make  angels  out  of  men.  That  attempt  of  exaggerated, 
overstrained,  hyper-human  sympathy,  love  and  self-sacrifice,  hails 
from  Hindu-Persian,  Essenian  pessimism :  The  world  is  a  blun¬ 
der;  Evil  (Ahriman)  is  even  stronger  than  Good  (Ahura  Maz¬ 
da)  ;  material  nature  is  the  Evil ,  by  principle ;  the  divine  light 
is  obscured  by  its  too  great  distance  from  its  origin ;  material 
existence  is  a  punishment  ;  this  Hindu-Persian,  Essenian  doc¬ 
trine  was  brought  to  the  West  by  Heo-Platonism,  by  Gnosticism 
and  by  Buddhism  (the  “vanity  of  vanities”  of  Ecclesiastes),  by 
the  qabbala,  Paul  and  Spinoza.  All  these  deprecated  the  world 
as  the  other  extreme  end  of  the  Divine  Light,  as  impurity,  dark¬ 
ness,  Evil.  All  these  taught  that  activity,  virtue,  study,  art,  re¬ 
nown — all  is  vain !  They  all  despaired  of  the  world  as  it  is. 
Some  despaired  and  gave  over  the  fight  as  futile,  as  Buddha  did ; 
some  aspired  at  a  total  renovation  of  the  world :  “To  improve* 
the  world  by  the  kingdom  of  heaven.”  So  did  the  Jewish  and 
the  Christian  moralists  during  the  first  centuries  of  the  com¬ 
mon  era.2  And  this  ideal  may  be  retraced  to  remoter  Indian 
ideas  and  ideals.  Pessimistic  Brahmanism,  despising  reality, 
existence,  work,  family  and  society,  aspired  to  its  original  atmos¬ 
phere,  beatitude,  ecstasy,  to  a  monastery  on  earth  and  soon  ab¬ 
sorption  in  God — Hirwana  .  .  . 

Quite  another  conception,  scheme  and  aspiration  are  enter¬ 
tained  by  Mosaism.  That  accepts  the  world  as  the  best  crea¬ 
tion,3  by  One  All-Wise,  All-Powerful  and  All-Loving  Supreme 
Being;  but  man,  being  morally  free,  though  not  always  wise, 
spoils  often  his  own  sphere  of  the  world  by  his  shortsighted  ego¬ 
ism  and  passion.  So  the  Mosaic  Law  copes  with  that  artificial, 
not  radical,  but  human,  evil.  That  Law  is  realistic,  practical, 

'As  to  the  common  herd  of  “wolves  In  6heep  skins,”  in  the  pulpits,  the 
halls  of  justice,  the  office,  the  rostrum,  their  number  is  legion  ...  It  is 
not  religion,  justice,  education  that  are  failures,  it  is  their  ministers  and 
stipendiaries.  A  plucky  preacher  in  New  York  recently  told  the  secret : 
“That  the  churches  are  empty,  the  stupid  ministers  are  the  cause.” 

5Aleinu  Prayer,  or  Adoration  ntl’  1113^03  D^iy  |pnb.  connecting  Nahardea, 
Judfea  and  India  with  the  world  embracing  humanitarian  aspirations. 

31U  '3  — *03  n'K’XIB  I.  M.  1. 


NO  FAVORS  IN  JUSTICE. 


103 


aiming  at  man  and  world  as  they  are,  aspiring  at  improving 
them,  not  sublimizing  and  angelizing  them.  It  ordains,  and 
with  emphasis,  work  for  six  days  in  the  week,  and  one  day  for 
rest;  work  in  the  sweat  of  thy  brow,  and  then  enjoyment  of 
what  is  produced;  it  bids  to  improve  and  to  build  up  society, 
family,  property.  Be  just,  good  and  sympathetic  towards  thy 
fellow-creation ;  live  and  let  live ;  do  not  take  advantage  nor 
over-reach ;  love  thy  neighbor,  condone  with  thy  enemy,  and, 
wherever  you  can,  encourage  and  assist ;  but  forget  not  thy  own 
self ;  practice  neither  selfishness,  nor  self-sacrifice,  but  choose 
the  just  mean  ,  standing  half-way  between  both,  as  Aristotle 
taught,  the  line  harmonizing  and  conciliating  egoism  with  altru¬ 
ism  ;  the  wise  and  enlightened  human  interest  of  all,  is  the  rule 
of  conduct  for  each ;  that  ego-alter  polity,  made  the  rule  of  each, 
will  gradually  bring  about  the  possible  happiness  of  all.1  Be  a 
good  individual,  parent,  friend,  fellow-citizen ;  fulfill  the  Law, 
and  that  will,  in  the  long  run,  procure  thee  all  the  happiness 
thou  art  capable  of.  And  that  is  a  reasonable  optimism.  That 
created  the  Mosaic  Laws  of  justice,  property,  charity  and  soli¬ 
darity.  That  the  Mosaic  Law  urges  on  and  aspires  at :  Be  a  good 
man,  not  an  angel ;  practice  right  and  charity,  not  self-sacrifice ; 
build  up  your  sphere,  your  own  world,  improve  that  world,  man 
and  society  as  they  are.  That  is  the  Mosaic  scheme,  and  from 
that  standpoint  are  framed  all  its  doctrines,  its  laws  and  insti¬ 
tutions,  all ;  civil,  political,  social,  agrarian,  industrial,  religious, 
charitable  and  humanitarian. 

Looking  around  in  the  world,  we  may  justly  conclude  that  all 
civilized  societies  of  this  terrestrial  globe  are  standing  upon  or 
making  for  these  principles,  making  the  best  of  what  we  have ; 
not  the  pessimism  of  Hindu-Persia,  but  the  mitigated,  mild 
optimism  of  Mosaism  is  the  ethical  standard  of  the  globe.  “The 
kingdom  of  heaven”  is  for  heaven,  and  this  earth  is  for  Adam’s 
children.*  This  is  the  Biblical  ethics  and  the  Mosaic  scheme. 
Let  the  world  realize  that,  and  it  will  be  good  enough ;  we  need 
no  new  ethics  and  no  millennium. 

'Kant. 

’DIN  'DU?  |]-|J  psm  '1?  D'tt&yn  PS.  115. 15. 


104 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


Protection  to  Women  Captives. 

The  Deuteronomist  resumes  our  important  theme,  the  human 
ity,  sympathy  and  solidarity  of  society,  which,  we  have  seen, 
pervades  the  entire  Bible  Legislation,  as  air  fills  space  and  as 
heat  and  electricity  permeate  living  bodies.  On  this  thrill¬ 
ing  occasion  it  states  (V  M.,  21.10)  :  “When  thou  goest  forth 
to  war  against  thy  enemy  .  .  .  and  on  taking  captives  .  .  . 
thou  seest  among  them  ...  a  beautiful  woman,  and  thou  crav- 
est  for  her,  thou  canst  take  her  to  be  thy  wife ;  .  .  .  Thou  shalt 
then  bring  her  into  thv  house,  and  she  dress  her  hair,1  pare  her 
nails,  put  off  her  captivity  garment,  and,  retired  in  thy  house, 
she  shall  mourn  over  her  father  and  mother  for  a  full  month; 
after  which  thou  canst  come  unto  her,  be  her  husband  and  she 
becomes  thy  wife.”  Behold  the  Lawgiver’s  broad  sympathy, 
thoroughly  humanitarian  and  unsectarian,  combined  with  solid 
realism;  he  is  little  given  to  idealism,  still  he  counts  upon  the 
spark  of  charity  lurking  in  the  deep  recesses  of  man’s  heart.  He 
knows  full  well  the  world,  its  ills,  tears  and  wrongs,  and  copes 
with  them.  Men  will  differ  in  opinions  and  in  interests ;  they 
will  quarrel  and  fight,  and  war  will  lead  to  oppression  and  cap¬ 
tivity.  The  ideal  moralist  would  preach  justice  and  charity, 
with  peace  and  no  war  or  captives.  But  it  will  take  yet  a  long 
while  until  he  will  succeed.  Therefore,  our  Mosaic  realistic  law, 
in  the  meantime,  attempts  to  lessen  and  mitigate  the  evil  and 
renders  the  fate  of  captives  at  least  bearable.  “To  the  victor  be¬ 
long  the  spoils.”  Well!  Let  him  use  them,  not  abuse  them! 
Hence  the  above  compromise  between  force  and  right,  practice 
and  theory;  the  victor  and  his  captive;  she  is  thine,  but  just  be¬ 
cause  she  is  thine,  spare  her.  She  may  be  thy  wife,  then  let  her 
be  no  longer  thy  slave.  It  is  thy  interest  and  thy  duty  to  make 
her  fate  tolerable.  Thou  shalt  not  treat  her  as  a  harlot,  but  as 
thy  wife  and  the  mother  of  thy  children.  Hence  let  her  put 
off  her  captive  dress,  let  her  mourn  over  her  country,  home  and 

■This  may  best  be  the  meaning  of  HK’NI  flN  literally,  she  shall 

shave  her  head,  perhaps  in  token  of  mourning.  The  Rabbi’s  suggestion, 
“in  order  to  render  tier  ugly,”  hardly  hits  the  sense  of  the  verse. 


PROTECTION  TO  WOMEN  CAPTIVES. 


105 


family;  give  her  a  month’s  time  to  resign  herself  unto  her  new 
conditions,  and  then  thou  art  free  to  be — her  husband. 

“Now,  it  may  come  to  pass  that  thou  dislikest  her” — what 
sound  psychology ;  for  to  kill  the  husband  and  parents  and  marry 
their  wife  or  daughter  is  ever  a  dangerous  experiment!  “Then 
beware  of  selling  her  away  as  a  slave!  Let  her  go  free,  since 
thou  hast  disappointed  her.”1  Here  is  the  humanity,  justice  and 
charity  towards  a  captive  woman,  the  most  helpless  of  all  vic¬ 
tims.  Here  is  a  realistic  point  of  legislation,  many  thousand 
years  old,  in  Asia,  hardly  reached  in  our  century.  Open  the 
pages  of  history  and  look  to  the  fate  of  captive  women,  by  far 
worse  than  that  of  male  war-prisoners.  Already  in  the  Trojan 
war  the  leaders,  Agamemnon  and  Achilles  quarreled  about  the 
lot  of  captured  females.  The  same  was  at  all  times  and  all 
climes.  The  victor  used  to  usurp  the  wife  or  daughter  of  the 
vanquished."  Pride,  revenge  and  lust  insisted  upon  that  bar¬ 
barous  custom.  Now,  here  is  a  soldier  flushed  with  victory, 
blood  and  greed  of  pillage,  and  here  is  a  helpless  woman,  his 
booty,  and  the  Lawgiver  steps  between  them,  magnanimously 
and  benevolently  he  rises  and  holds  up  his  shield :  Let  her  be  thy 
wife,  not  thy  harlot  and  concubine ! 

Here  is  the  divine  part  of  the  Lawgiver,  to  protect  the  inno¬ 
cent  and  the  weak  and  to  humanize  the  overbearing  strong.  Re¬ 
member  the  wife  of  the  Levite  maltreated  by  the  Benjaminite 
tribe  (Judges,  19).  King  Said  gives  away  the  wife  of  the  fugi¬ 
tive  David,  his  own  son-in-law  and  former  favorite.  Absolom  in¬ 
vades  his  father’s  harem,  in  proof  of  his  occupying  the  parental 
throne.  King  Alboin  compels  his  wife,  the  daughter  of  the 
vanquished  Herulean  king,  whom  he  had  killed,  to  drink  out  of 
her  father’s  cranium,  formed  into  a  wine-cup.  At  all  times  con¬ 
querors  gave  free  to  their  victorious  soldiers  the  women  of  the 
vanquished,  as  their  booty.  Augustus  of  Rome  and  recent  Na¬ 
poleon  of  France  made  free  with  the  women  of  their  friends  and 

'This  is  the  real  sense  of  the  verse;  the  moral,  not  the  literal  one. 

2So  Neoptolemus,  Achilles’  son,  forcibly  marries  Hector’s  wife,  Andro¬ 
mache,  and  then  forsakes  her.  Absolom  usurps  his  fugitive  father’s  wives 
etc.  in  token  of  his  successful  rebellion  and  seizure  of  the  throne. 


106 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


their  foes.  The  latter’s  wanton  insult  to  Princess  Louise  of 
Prussia  was  even  more  brutal  than  his  cruel  murder  of  the 
Prince  de  Conde.  In  such  an  emergency  the  Mosaic  Lawgiver 
sternly  steps  in  with  the  aegis  of  divine  protection  to  poor,  help¬ 
less  womanhood. 

But  even  in  our  own  times  things  have  little  improved.  Think 
of  how,  within  this  generation,  Russian  Cossacks  dragged  Jewish 
peaceful  men,  and  women  in  childbed,  in  grim  winter,  out  of 
their  own  beds,  to  thrust  them  into  exile ;  how  they  ravished  and 
murdered  helpless  virgins  and  matrons !  Remember  how  the 
Turks  treated  Christian  women  in  the  Bulgarian  insurrection! 
You  have  heard  of  Arabi  Pasha’s  Alexandrian  revolt,  his  massa¬ 
cre  and  abuse  of  European  women.  Remember  how  on  a  simi¬ 
lar  occasion  the  English  soldiery  treated  Hindu  women ;  how 
the  Chinese  Boxers  used  Mohomedan  and  Christian  women,  and 
how  Chinese  women  were  treated  by  European  soldiers  in  their 
turn !  One  wrong  brings  another  wrong.  So,  Hillel,  the  Elder, 
remarked,  on  seeing  a  corpse  swimming  in  the  river:  “Because 
thou  didst  drown,  thou  hast  been  drowned,  and  those  that  have 
drowned  thee  will  be  drowned  in  their  turn”  .  .  .  Here  is  the 
logical  Talion  in  history:  The  Russians  maltreated  the  Poles  and 
Finns  and  Jews;  the  Turks  outraged  the  Christians;  Arabi 
Pasha  retaliated  on  the  Europeans ;  the  Europeans  on  the  Hin¬ 
dus  and  Chinese,  and  the  Chinese  abused  Christians  and  Moham¬ 
medans.  “One  wrong  brings  another.”  “Since  thou  didst  drown, 
thou  hast  been  drowned.”1  “The  world’s  history  is  the  world’s 
judgment  seat.”2 

JNTow,  compare  with  that  dismal  historic  tableau  the  realistic 
but  humanitarian  legislation  of  our  chapter,  and  see  how  far  in 
advance  Mosaism  is  of  even  our  own  present  time !  Neverthe¬ 
less,  Anti-Semitism  and  agnosticism  clamor  for  higher  patterns 
of  ethics  and  humanity !  As  if  the  Old  Testament  ones  had  been 
reached  and  outstripped !  Even  in  America  they  have  not  been 
reached.  That  old  axiom  was  still  repeated  by  American  lead- 

'Tiddn  nctsxn  by  faboth  II)  nT3y  nrni  m'ay 

’Schiller’s  Resignation  poem,  “  Die  Welt-Geschichte  ist  das  Weltgericht.” 


PROTECTION  TO  WOMEN  CAPTIVES. 


107 


ers :  In  our  Civil  War,  the  Mexican  War,  Cuba,  Porto  Rico  and 
Manila  wars,  “To  the  victor  belong  the  spoils'’  was  appealed 
to,  though,  I  hope  it  did  not  go  to  the  full  length  of  barbarism. 
The  same  allowed  England  a  free  hand  in  Boers’  land ! 

On  such  occasions  it  is  the  province  of  Law,  as  religion,  as  a 
truly  divine  messenger,  magnanimously  to  step  in  and  inter¬ 
fere,  and  call  upon,  with  the  sacred  authority  of  higher  justice: 
Thou  claimest  victory  and  booty ;  still  thy  captive  is  not  abso¬ 
lutely  at  thy  command.  The  law  shields  her  yet!  Thou  canst 
make  her  thy  wife,  not  thy  toy !  Give  her  time  for  mourning, 
self-collection  and  preparation,  for  her  new  condition.  Then  I 
allow  thee  marriage,  not  concubinage,  nor  selling  her  into  new 
servitude ! 

Undoubtedly,  there  are  yet  higher  ideals :  Ho  war,  no  booty, 
and  no  forced  marriages.  But,  unfortunately,  even  in  our  times, 
that  Mosaic  mitigating  and  protecting  lawr  of  3,000  years  ago  has 
not  yet  been  reached !  History  will  for  a  long  time  yet,  with  a 
blush,  yea,  with  a  cry  of  horror,  remember  how  Jewish  women 
were  treated  by  Russians,  Bulgarian  women  by  Turks,  Hindu 
ones  by  English,  Alexandria-European  and  Christian  ones  by 
Arabi  Pasha’s  bands,  Mohammedan  and  Christian  ones  by  the 
Chinese,  and  Chinese  ones  by  European  soldiers !  The  liberal 
and  pious  Gladstone  felt  indignant,  and  so  was  Europe,  at 
Arabi’s  outrage  of  helpless  weakness.  Unanimously  he  and  Eu¬ 
rope  insisted  upon  and  obtained  the  immediate  bombardment  of 
Alexandria,  as  well  as  the  exemplary  punishment  of  the  Turks 
for  their  outrages  in  Bulgaria.  But  they  were  and  still  are  si¬ 
lent  at  the  outrages  on  Jewish  helplessness  by  the  Russians  and 
the  other  barbarous  countries.  Still,  here  is  the  Mosaic  Lawgiver 
protecting  the  honor  and  dignity  of  heathen  womanhood  against 
Hebraic  victors  !  Still,  Europe  and  its  leaders  claim  to  revere 
the  Bible,  but  they  do  not  obey  its  moral  precepts  l1 

The  Rabbis  and  the  Reverse  Side. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  later  Jewish  moralists  do  not  forget 
and  do  call  frequently  attention  to  the  danger  of  marrying  under 
the  spur  of  mere  passion.  So,  for  instance,  is  David  challenged 

•You  remember  that  Spartan  remarking:  “The  Athenians  know  what  is 
right,  but  they  will  not  do  it.” 


108 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


for  his  murder  of  Uri  and  the  marriage  of  the  latter  one’s  wife, 
Bath-Sheba,  an  ugly  stain  on  the  history  of  that  heroic,  versatile, 
great  King,  no  doubt.  Nevertheless,  it  speaks  volumes  for  the 
superior  morality  in  Israel  and  the  stern  outspokenness  of  the 
Jewish  prophets  and  historians;  a  shining  example  in  the  annals 
of  conquerors  and  courts  of  all  times.  Rare  is  the  monarch 
or  hero  who  has  not  committed  the  crime  of  David !  But  rarer 
still,  indeed,  is  the  repentance,  the  frank  acknowledgment  and 
the  effort  to  make  it  good,  as  shown  by  him.  Nowhere  in  history 
can  we  find  a  Court-Prophet  or  historiographer  dare  tell  the 
king  and  hero  that  fine  story  of  “the  rich  master  devouring  the 
poor  man’s  single  lamb”  .  .  .  and  boldly  winding  up  with: 
“ Thou  art  the  man!”  (II  Sam.,  12.7.)  Such  crimes  are  not  in¬ 
frequent,  but  such  rebuke  by  prophet  and  repentance  by  prince 
are  rare,  nay,  sublime!  A  hundred  times  David  submits  to 
see  thrown  into  his  face  his  sin  with  Bath-Sheba ;  and  even  his 
future  dynasty’s  many  misfortunes  and  disorders  are  logically 
attributed  to  his  own  crimes  of  that  nature.  On  a  similar  occa¬ 
sion  the  Talmud  is  just  as  outspoken  as  was  the  prophet  Nathan. 
It  is  a  fine  remark  in  Sanhedrin,  107a,  viz:  The  Rabbis  as¬ 
sume  that  the  mother  of  Absolom,  the  rebellious  son  of  King 
David,  was  a  female  war-captive,  allowed  by  law  to  be  married 
by  her  Jewish  captor.  David  quoting  that  law  as  his  excuse  for 
that  marriage,  a  Teacher  pointedly  replied:  “True,  but  you  for¬ 
get  the  context :  ‘When  a  man  will  have  a  disobedient  and  rebel¬ 
lious  son.’  ”  (V  M.,  21)  :  “Whoever  marries  a  female  captured 
in  war,  will  have  leisure  to  repent  of  it,  for  he  will  father  a  dis¬ 
obedient  and  rebellious  son.”1 

Protection  for  Children.  Primogeniture. 

(V  M.,  21.15)  :  “If  a  man  have  two  wives,  one  loved  and 
one  hated,  and  both  bear  him  children,  and  the  first-born  son  be 
by  the  hated  one  .  .  .  then  he  cannot  substitute  the  son  of  the 
beloved  wife  as  his  first-born  to  the  first-born  of  the  hated  one ; 
but  the  first-born  son  of  the  hated  one,  he  shall  acknowledge  and 


‘mioi  TUD  J3  if  INin  ns'  fa,  a  deeply  psychological  diagnosis. 


PROTECTION  FOR  CHILDREN.  PRIMOGENITURE. 


109 


recognize  as  such,  and  give  him  a  double  portion  of  all  he  pos¬ 
sesses  .  .  .  for  to  him  belongeth  the  right  of  primogeniture.” 
Behold  how  the  Mosaic  Law  is  dictated  by  the  divine  spirit  of 
impartial  justice  and  broad  humanity,  without  any  unjust  preju¬ 
dice  !  Polygamy  is  bad  enough ;  two  sets  of  children  in  one 
household  are  its  next  baneful  consequence ;  the  father  may,  nat¬ 
urally,  prefer  the  child  of  the  loved  wife  to  that  of  the  disliked 
one,  a  third  ugly  result;  jealousy,  hate,  crime,  will  follow,  even 
to  substitution  and  prejudicing  the  innocent  offspring  of  polyg¬ 
amy.  But  the  Lawgiver  interferes  and  ordains  that  the  fatal  con¬ 
sequences  shall  stop  there  and  not  go  on  unchecked ;  he  declares 
that  feelings  are  uncontrollable,  but  deeds,  facts,  are  and  must  be. 
Therefore  he  fixes  the  primogeniture  irrevocably.  The  parental 
predilection  shall  not  go  any  further  and  practically  become  det¬ 
rimental  to  the  offspring,  entirely  innocent  of  such  likes  and  dis¬ 
likes  ;  right  shall  not  be  set  aside  by  whims  and  sentimentality ; 
the  real  first-born  son,  though  by  the  hated  woman,  shall  have 
his  right,  and  not  be  supplanted  by  his  rival,  the  son  of  the  lucky 
woman.  The  Legislator  instituting  this  law  had  before  his 
mind’s  eye  the  story  of  Jacob,  Leah,  Rachel  and  their  different 
sets  of  children;  hence  their  jealousy  of  Joseph,  his  abduction, 
with  all  the  unfortunate  results  and  the  later  recognition  in 
Egypt ;  later  yet,  J oseph  actually  receiving  a  double  portion  and 
the  privilege  of  first-birth,  arise  the  most  baneful  national  results 
for  centuries,  in  the  jealousies  and  wars  of  the  houses  of  Judah 
and  Ephraim,  the  offspring  of  the  disliked  Leah  and  the  beloved 
Rachel.  Here,  we  see,  the  Lawgiver  had  well  studied  history, 
and  seen  how  insignificant  causes  grow  with  time  into  disas¬ 
trous  and  monstrous  consequences.  Learning  from  history,  he 
declared :  The  parent  shall  not  transfer  the  primogeniture  from 
the  son  of  the  disliked  wife  to  that  of  the  preferred  one ;  but 
to  him,  the  really  and  naturally  first-born  one,  belongs  that  privi¬ 
lege.  Sentiment  must  be  waved  with,  and  right  and  reason  re¬ 
main  permanently.  Remember,  now,  the  environments :  The 
Orient,  3,000  years  ago ;  woman  is  a  slave  and  has  no  independ¬ 
ent  status;  she  is  a  drudge,  a  wife  or  a  Sultana,  all  accord- 


110 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


ing  to  her  good  luck,  if  loved  or  not ;  according  to  the  good 
sense  or  the  caprice  of  the  master — that  determines  the  fate  and 
position  of  her  children !  They  are  slaves,  as  the  mother  is.  Add 
to  that  polygamy,  that  there  are  in  the  one  household  many 
wives,  each  with  her  set  of  children.  How  fatal  such  conditions 
are  to  the  household,  making  it  a  hotbed  of  intrigue  and  hate, 
persecution  and  assassination,  even  parricide,  we  learn  by  a 
glance  in  the  history  of  Oriental  nations,  dynasties  and  palace 
revolutions.  The  children  of  the  different  slave-wives  are  nat¬ 
ural  enemies  of  each  other,  and  hence  the  frequency  of  domestic 
tragedies,  with  strangling,  dagger  and  poison.  So  our  sacred 
law  sets  its  face  agaisnt  that  ominous  and  baneful  social  feature 
in  the  polygamous  Orient.  It  determines  definitely  and  ration¬ 
ally  the  primogeniture ;  it  protects  the  innocent  child  against  the 
results  of  parental  weaknesses ;  the  great  heart  of  the  Lawgiver 
goes  out  toward  the  innocent  young,  drying  their  tears  and  turn¬ 
ing  off  their  daggers. 


THE  REBELLIOUS  SON. 


Ill 


CHAPTER  V. 

The  Rebellious  Son. 

(V  M.,  21.18-22)  :  “If  a  man  have  a  rebellious  and  stubborn 
son,  not  obeying  bis  parents,  and  they  chastise  him  and  be  heark¬ 
ens  not  .  .  .  then  they  shall  bring  him  before  the  city  Elders 
and  say :  This,  our  son,  is  stubborn  and  rebellious,  be  is  a  glutton 
and  a  drunkard,  and  obeys  us  not.  And  all  the  men  of  bis  city 
shall  stone  him  that  he  die  .  .  .  that  all  shall  hear  and  be 
afraid.”  Consider,  now,  the  circumstances :  Anciently,  the  fa¬ 
ther  was  the  absolute  master  and  owner  of  the  family,  as  the 
king,  the  supreme  patriarch,  was  of  the  entire  territory  and  peo¬ 
ple.  The  parent  could  sell,  expose  or  kill  bis  child.  Disobe¬ 
dience  was  a  crime,  and  punished  by  him  without  appeal.  Mosa- 
ism  substituted,  instead,  the  arraignment  before  the  Judges  or 
Elders,  and  public  punishment  inflicted  by  them,  instead  of  pri¬ 
vate  revenge  by  the  offended  parties,  giving  the  incriminated 
son  a  chance  of  appeal,  if  innocent.  Thus  the  law  intervened 
between  parents  and  child,  to  secure  to  reason  the  dominion  over 
passion,  even  in  such  delicate  family  cases.  Compare  this,  now, 
with  the  most  vaunted  conditions  of  antiquity.  In  Sparta  the 
young  son  knew  the  mother,  not  usually  the  father ;  be  belonged 
to  the  State,  not  to  the  parents.  He  was  bred  up  to  become  the 
soldier  and  the  tool  of  the  country’s  greatness,  not  to  revere  and 
love  the  parents.  If  born  weakly,  be  was  thrown  down  a  preci¬ 
pice,  being  of  no  use  to  fight,  bis  only  usefulness.  In  Athens 
the  young  ones  could  be  sold  or  exposed.  Infanticide  was  per¬ 
mitted  there.  In  Rome,  even  the  grown  son  was  absolutely  the 
property  of  the  parent,  at  bis  mercy  for  life  and  death.  That 
is  a  principle  in  the  Roman  XII  Tables  and  maintained  down 
to  the  Middle  Ages.  Whilst  in  Mosaism,  humanity  and  justice 
threw  the  protecting  a?gis  not  only  upon  the  good,  dutiful  chil¬ 
dren,  but  even  upon  the  unruly,  hard  ones,  incriminated  by  the 
parents.  The  Talmud  went  even  further  upon  the  road  of  jus¬ 
tice,  mercy  and  universal  protection.  It  declared  that  the  in- 


112 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


crimination  brought  forward  in  our  text,  is  far  from  deserving 
and  requiring  stoning,  but  that  the  Lawgiver  foresaw  the  future, 
that  such  a  prematurely  vicious  individual  would  end  shame¬ 
fully.  Hence  the  law  anticipated :  “Better  let  him  die  half  in¬ 
nocent  than  fully  guilty,”  and  thus,  for  example’s  sake,  removed 
him  quickly.1  Arguing  closely,  now,  from  the  letter  of  the  text, 
pushing  letter  and  argument  to  their  very  extreme,  the  Sages 
multiplied  the  conditions  and  clauses  of  the  case  to  such  an  ex¬ 
tent  that  the  execution  of  the  law  becomes  pretty  nigh  an  impos¬ 
sibility.  The  Rabbis  openly  admit  that  never  such  a  case  had 
occurred:  a  rebellious  son  stoned  to  death.  Thus  the  liberality 
of  Mosaism  was  even  surpassed  by  that  of  the  Talmud.  The 
Mosaic  Law  was  more  liberal  than  its  preceding  Codes,  for  in¬ 
stance  Hammurabi’s  Stela,  and  still  it  was  often  outstripped  in 
liberality  by  the  Sages.  Their  requirements  in  capital  suits 
made  death  penalty  almost  impossible. 

What  an  immense  advance  of  the  Bible  and  Talmud,  of  3,000 
and  1,500  years  ago,  respectively,  over  the  most  vaunted  legis¬ 
lations  of  Greece  and  Rome,  not  to  speak  of  India  or  the  Orient. 
The  humanitarianism  of  the  Thora  is  fairly  recognized  by  the 
Gentile  jurists  and  scholars;  of  course,  according  to  them,  ever 
only  as  forerunner  and  preparatory  to  the  Hew  Testament.  Hot 
so  recognized  is  the  Talmud.  It  was  in  June,  1882,  when 
Professor  Peter  Schegg,  Rector  of  the  University  of  Munich, 
gave  an  excellent  lecture  on  that  theme  at  the  celebration  of  the 
four  hundredth  Jubilee  of  that  institution.  He  eulogized  greatly 
and  intelligently  the  humanity  principle  of  the  Pentateuch  and 
its  vast  superiority  over  the  leading  legislations  of  antiquity; 
“but,”  he  added,  “the  Talmud  counteracted  this  Biblical  human¬ 
ity,  on  purpose  and  intently,  for  which  fatal  direction  it  justly 
deserved  the  reproach  of  Tacitus:  ‘Odium  generis  humani /  By 
the  rabbinical  leading  principle,  that  God  will  never  change  his 
law,  every  religious  progress  became  impossible.”  Such  re¬ 
proaches  we  hear  daily,  because  people  judge  of  things  they  do 
not  fully  understand.  The  fact  is,  the  Rabbis  everywhere  miti- 

'Sanhedrin,  63b,  jmj  1D1D  OB’  >y  mi»!  TI1D  J3 


THE  REBELLIOUS  SON. 


113 


gated  and  liberalized  the  rigors  of  the  Mosaic  Law,  itself  much 
milder  than  its  predecessors.  By  their  hermeneutic  rules  they 
disestablished  many  harsh  laws  and  instituted  ethics  more  con¬ 
genial  with  their  environments.  Severer  and  more  rigorous 
again  they  were  in  their  hedges  and  ceremonies  and  entrench¬ 
ments,  as  safeguards  against  the  amalgamation  of  their  national¬ 
ity  with  the  inimical  heathen  surroundings.  They  were  thus 
lenient  in  law  and  rigorous  in  religious  hedges.  And  this  im¬ 
portant  distinction  Professor  Schegg,  as  many  other  scholars, 
has  overlooked.  Elsewhere  we  have  shown  this  more  fully.1 

If  the  Professor  had  but  glanced  at  the  Talmud  on  this  pres¬ 
ent  occasion,  and  likewise  a  thousand  others,  he  would  have 
found  the  Rabbis  very  progressive.  With  all  their  respect  for 
the  letter,  but  whenever  out  of  time,  pushing  it  to  extreme,  they 
entirely  disestablished  a  relic  of  hoary  times  and  made  such 
a  case  impossible.  Better  informed,  the  Professor  would  have 
acknowledged  that  the  Talmud  knows  well  to  distinguish  the 
letter  from  the  spirit  of  the  Thora,  each  advancing  its  time,  and 
more  liberal  than  its  contemporaries. 

The  Liberal  and  tiie  Conservative  Talmudic  Phases. 

The  fact  is,  we  find  in  the  Talmud  two  phases,  running  in 
opposite  directions :  One  is  extremely  liberal,  broadly  humani¬ 
tarian,  taking  Israel  but  as  a  fraction  of,  or  as  humanity  in 
miniature,  as  its  advanced  vanguard  and  exponent.  Another 
phase  is  the  national,  racial,  exclusive  Judaism,  barricaded  be¬ 
hind  its  613  Biblical  commandments  and  their  innumerable  Tal- 
inudical  further  enactments,  hedges,  customs  and  entrench¬ 
ments  ;2  considering  Israel  as  the  fortified  camp  of  Monotheism 
among  the  inimical  polytheistic  nations,  they  shaped  and  consti¬ 
tuted  him  as  an  everlasting  opposition,  a  protest  not  only  in  doc¬ 
trine,  worship  and  race,  but.  as  a  powerful  auxiliary,  also  in 
life,  in  dress,  diet,  speech,  etc. ;  prohibiting  everything  Gentile 
as  idolatry,  differentiating  and  isolating  the  Jew  by  all  means, 
just  to  keep  him  away  from  assimilation  and  have  him  face 

■See  Mosaic  Diet  and  Hygiene  on  this  theme. 

,ni3r>n  , d'J'-d  ,nwtJ 


114 


HTJMAMTY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


the  ill-will  of  the  non- Jew.  The  first  phase,  liberal  concessions, 
is  designated  in  the  Talmud  as  “for  the  sake  of  peace  and  good¬ 
will  the  other  is:  “Sectarian  discrimination,  having  the  inten¬ 
tion  of  preventing  assimilation  and  amalgamation,  deprecating 
it  as  Gentile  custom  ( Hukath  Iiagoy).”  Following  up  the  first 
method,  it  requires  the  Jew  to  let  the  Gentile  participate  in  all 
our  kindnesses,  charities  and  urbanities ;  to  visit  his  sick,  assist 
his  poor,  take  no  usury  of  him,  follow  his  funeral  processions, 
congratulate  him  and  rejoice  on  his  holidays,  assist  him  with 
a  loan,  never  to  over-reach  him,  and  in  every  respect  to  treat 
him  with  honesty  and  courtesy.  The  other  method  is  just  the 
contrary:  Anything  and  everything  he  does  is  forbidden  to  the 
Hebrew ;  not  to  court  his  company  and  his  hospitality ;  to  touch 
him,  his  dress,  his  bread,  his  wine,  is  forbidden,  as  unclean ;  to 
shun  him  and  ever  and  in  everything  be  contrary  to  him ;  every¬ 
thing  is  “ Hukath  Hagoy .”  Hon-Jewish  custom  is  not  to  be  imi¬ 
tated,  and  any  concession  to  him  is  forbidden  as  idolatry.  To 
sum  up:  One  direction  is:  In  critical  times  the  Jew  shall  yield 
to  the  Gentile  in  everything  except  three,  idolatry,  imchastity 
and  murder ;  he  shall  rather  die  than  commit  these.  The  contrary 
phase  prescribes:  Hot  to  yield  even  on  the  least  rabbinical  point, 
and  rather  die  than  transgress  any  established  custom.  Appar¬ 
ently,  the  first  was  enacted  in  times  of  peace,  resignation,  good¬ 
will  ;  the  second  was  provoked  by  persecution  and  gross  intoler¬ 
ance,  spite  aroused  spite.  Each  phase  was  an  echo  of  the 
environments.  The  minority  offered  assimliation,  not  apos¬ 
tasy.  Grossly  persecuted,  they  turned  each  hedge  to  a  means  of 
defense,  just  as  intended  for  by  the  Talmudists.  These  two 
directions  apparently  belong  to  different  phases,  ages  and  his¬ 
torical  environments,  as  their  natural  reflections  and  echoes. 
The  Jew  retaliated  in  mere  self-defense.  The  first  view  is  the 
broad  humanity  of  Mosaism,  elaborated  in  the  Talmud.  The 
other  was  induced  by  the  intolerance  of  and  the  hitter  persecu¬ 
tions  by  the  Gentile  world.  These  found  their  echo,  their  ex¬ 
pression  of  defiance  and  their  counter-measures  in  the  Jewish 
Ghetto,  stamping  everything  Gentile  as  forbidden  to  the  Jew. 


REGARD  FOR  THE  GUILTY  AND  THE  BRUTE. 


115 


This  was  the  natural,  baneful  harvest  of  the  serpent’s  teeth 
sowed  by  Anti-Semitism  of  old. 

Regard  for  the  Guilty  and  the  Brute. 

(V  M.,  21.23)  :  “If  a  criminal  man  be  killed  and  hanged  on 
a  tree  .  .  .  his  body  shall  not  remain  there  over  night,  but  thou 
shalt,  indeed,  bury  him  on  the  same  day,”  for  a  dishonor  to  God 
is  the  hanged  one.  “Thou  shalt  not  defile  thy  land.”  Rome 
used  to  let  such  corpses  putrify  and  become  the  prey  of  birds 
and  dogs.  The  crucified  person  used  to  remain  for  many  days 
on  the  cross,  slowly  dying,  and  hardly  buried.  In  Homer  we 
read  that  even  Patroclus’  and  Hector’s  bodies  ran  great  risk  of 
being  thrown  to  and  devoured  by  the  dogs  j1  that  to  prevent  this, 

iHorner,  Patroclus  and  Hector;  Ilias,  XVII.,  1-XXII.,  395-XXIV.,  493: 

Oud’  elath’  Atreos  vion,  areifilon  Menelaon 

Patroklos  Troessi  damcis  en  deioteti. 

Be  de  dia  promachon  kekorythmenos  aitkopi  chalko,  .  .  . 

Os  peri  Patroklo  baine  Xanthos  Menelaos  .  .  . 

(Homer,  Ilias,  XVII.,  1.) 

(Ibid.,  XVII.,  123)  : 

Aianti  de  daifroni  thymon  orinen. 

Be  de  dia  promachon,  ama  de  Xanthos  Menelaos. 

’Ektor  men  Patroklon,  epei,  klyta  teuche  apeura, 

Elch’,  in’  ap’  omoun  kefalen  tamoi  oxei  chalko, 

Ton  de  uekyn  Troesin  eryssamenos  kysi  doie  .  .  . 

(Ibid.,  XVII,  394)  : 

Os  oig’  entha  kai  entha  uekyn  olige  eni  chore 

Elkeou  amfoteroi,  mala  gar  sflsin  elpeto  thymos. 

Troesin  men  eryein  proti  Ilion,  autar  Achaiois, 

Neas  epi  glafyras.  Peri  d'  autou  molos,  ororei,  agrios,  .  .  . 

(Ibid.,  XXII.,  395)  : 

E  ra  kai  ’Ektora  dion  aeika  medeto  erga.  amforteron  mteopisthe 
poden  .  .  . 

(Ibid.,  XXIII.,  179)  : 

Chaire  moi,  O  Patrokle,  kai  ein’  aidao  domoio,  panta  gar  ede  toi 
teleo, 

Ta  paroithen  ypesten.  dodeka  men  Troon  megathumon  vieas  estli- 
lous,  tous  ama 

Soi  pantas  pyr  esthiei,  'Ektora  d’  outi  doso  Priamiden  pyri  dapte- 
mon,  alia  Kynessin. 

(Ibid.,  XXIV.,  493)  : 

Autar  ego  panapotmos,  epei  tekon  vias  aristous  Troie  en  cureie  .  .  . 


116 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


Priamus,  the  latter’s  father,  paid  to  Achilles  an  immense  ran¬ 
som  to  save  the  body  from  that  disgraceful  treatment.  Mosaism 
extends  its  humane  care  even  to  the  dead  criminal.  Once  dead, 
his  crime  is  atoned,  and  he  is  a  dead  brother  again,  and  depriv¬ 
ing  him  of  sepulchre  is  a  defilement  of  and  a  disgrace  to  man, 
the  land  and  God.  Here  we  find,  besides,  an  ominous  hint  that 
capital  punishment  is  barbarous  and  a  disgrace  to  civilization. 

(V  M.,  22.1-5)  :  “When  thou  seest  thy  brother’s  ox  or  lamb 
astray  .  .  .  return  them  to  him.”  In  II  M.,  23.4,  the  same 
is  ordained  also  for  the  enemy’s  ox  etc.  “When  thou  seest  thy 
brother’s  ass  or  ox  falling  by  the  way,  help  him  lift  them  up.” 
In  II  M.,  23.5,  the  same  is  prescribed  for  the  enemy’s  ass  or  ox. 
One  version  teaches  forbearance  towards  the  enemy,  the  other 
sympathy  with  man  and  brute.  (V  M.,  22.6)  :  “If  thou  meet- 
est  a  bird’s  nest  on  thy  way,  on  the  tree  or  on  the  ground  .  .  . 
the  mother  lying  upon  the  young  or  on  the  eggs,  thou  shalt  not 
take  both  with  thee,  mother  and  young,  but  let  the  mother  go 
.  .  .  that  it  may  be  well  with  thee  and  that  thou  livest  long.” 
What  sweet  sympathy  even  with  the  dumb  brute!  Some  claim 
to  find  here  rather  the  forethought  of  the  economist,  to  save  the 
race  from  destruction.  The  closing  verse  seems  to  favor  the 
sympathetic  sense  of  the  Law,  not  the  prudence  of  the  bird- 
breeder.  Still,  it  may  aim  at  both ;  the  Law  appeals  to  the  sym¬ 
pathy  of  the  bird-hunter,  and  at  the  same  time  aims  at  saving 
the  species.  It  improves  both,  hunter  and  hunted,  by  goodness 
of  heart  and  increase  of  the  winged  race,  as  everything  good  is 
also  useful.  To  destroy,  at  one  blow,  mother  and  young  denotes 
great  brutality  in  man  and  lack  of  forethought  for  the  future. 
Besides,  to  cultivate  kindly  sympathy  towards  the  brute  will 
render  man  the  more  sympathetic  towards  his  fellow-man.  The 
hoary  Greeks  used  to  offer  frequently  human  sacrifices  to  the 
gods  $  even  much  later  the  Romans  used  to  offer  the  people 
gladiatory  spectacles,  with  carnage  and  murder  as  the  spice; 
they  let  their  crucified  putrify,  ostensibly  in  order  to  please  the 
gods  and  to  punish  the  enemies,  but  really  to  inure  their  people 
with  the  sight  of  bloodshed  and  to  suppress  all  sense  of  pity  and 
remorse,  deeming  these  latter  to  be  a  weakness,  decreasing  the 


BEGARD  FOR  THE  FLORA. 


117 


civic  courage  and  the  capacity  for  war.  In  opposition  to  that, 
Mosaism,  desiring  to  nurture  sympathy,  pity  and  peaceful  hab¬ 
its,  ordained  to  spare  the  brute  and  to  decently  bury  the  dead 
criminal.  Whilst  the  Persians  often  buried  their  condemned 
ones  alive,  in  order  not  to  defile  by  their  death  the  sacred  ground, 
Mosaism  bade  to  kill  them  quickly,  humanely,  and  bury  them 
decently  and  at  once,  careful  of  human  feeling,  not  of  the  in¬ 
sensible  soil.  The  rabbis  well  understood  this  delicacy  of  the 
Law.  They  insisted  upon  the  quick  and  humane  death  of  the 
criminal,  with  least  of  pain,  treating  him  as  an  unfortunate 
brother,  arguing:  “Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself,” 
hence,  choose  the  easiest  form  of  death  for  the  condemned 
brother.1 

Regard  for  the  Flora. 

Similar  is  the  sense  of  V  M.,  20.19 :  “When  thou  besiegest 
a  city  to  conquer  it  .  .  .  thou  shalt  not  destroy  its  trees,  thou 
mayest  enjoy  of  its  fruit,  but  not  cut  it  down,  for  is  the  tree 
a  man  to  be  besieged  by  thee!”2  Here  is  a  rebuke  to  barbarous, 
clannish  Bedawins,  who  destroy  what  they  cannnot  carry  away. 
It  teaches  sympathy  and  consideration  for  the  vegetation ;  no 
useless  destruction  even  of  trees  and  other  commodities.  Make 
war  upon  man,  if  thy  enemy,  not  upon  inanimate  nature,  for 
thou  mayest  thyself  need  to  utilize  it.  Here  is  a  rebuke  to 
barbarous  vandalism  and,  at  the  same  time  a  lesson  of  delicacy 
and  natural  fellow-feeling,  as  well  as  of  humane,  saving  econ¬ 
omy.  So  a  naughty  boy  amuses  himself  with  tormenting  birds 
and  destroying  toys  and  fine  flowers ;  a  good  child  builds  and 
protects  bird’s  nests  and  cultivates  flowers.  Both  are  but  infan¬ 
tine  pastimes,  still  each  shows  the  drift  of  his  mind ;  and  as  a 
wise  pedagogue  will  encourage  the  latter  propensity,  discourage 
and  punish  the  first,  even  that  is  the  intent  of  the  verses  just 
discussed. 

The  Persians,  believing  in  two  divine  powers,3  that  of  Good 

'Sanhedrin.  nS'  nJVO  lb  "1113-  Levit.'  19. 

s?"US03  "PJSD  N13^  )*y  DISH  '3  That  seems  to  be  its  best  sense. 

3Ormuzd  and  Ahriman,  the  two  principles.  See  Zend  Avesta,  page  28. 
Shetai  rushioth,  often  alluded  to  in  the  Talmud. 


118  HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 

and  that  of  Evil,  worshipped  the  Good  one,  by  the  cultivation 
and  saving  of  good  plants,  lands  and  useful  domestic  animals. 
So  the  Rabbis  suspected  here  that  some  might  assume  these  hu¬ 
mane  verses  on  bird’s  nests,  fruit-trees  etc.  contemplated,  as  of 
Parsee  dualistic  tendency,  to  which  they  most  seriously  objected, 
and  rightly  so.  Still,  our  Agadists  and  moralists  gave  to  the 
One  God  of  Israel  two  leading  names,  phases,  attributes:  Jus¬ 
tice  and  Love  ;x  assuming  each  at  different  times.  The  same 
Deity  permitting  thee  to  fight  an  enemy,  ordains  thee  to  spare  his 
fruit-tree,  to  spare  his  widowed  wife  and  his  enslaved  brother,  to 
spare  the  criminal’s  corpse  and  to  spare  the  mother  of  the  cap¬ 
tured  bird’s  nest.  The  God  of  Justice  of  Israel  is  the  God  of 
Good  of  the  Parsee  and  the  God  of  Love  of  the  Christian;  jus¬ 
tice,  love  and  goodness  are  but  the  different  sides  and  phases  of 
the  One  Supreme  Being  with  numberless  attributes  besides ;  He 
is  infinite.  These  two  divine  phases  of  the  Agada  grew  in  Christ- 
ology  to  two  persons  in  the  One  Deity,  God-Father  (or  God  of 
Justice)  and  the  Son,  or  Love.  Later  was  added  the  third  per¬ 
son,  the  Holy  Ghost.  Here  we  see  the  growth  of  religious  views. 
Franz  Delitzsch  told  me  personally  that  to  him  the  Trinity  is 
but  attributive,  as  with  the  Agadists ;  the  masses  speak  of  three 
persons. 

“Thou  Shalt  Hot  Surrender  the  Slave  to  His  Master/'’ 
(V  M.,  23.16)  :  “Thou  shalt  not  deliver  to  his  master  the 
slave  who  has  escaped  to  thee  from  his  master.  With  thee  he 
shall  live  wherever  he  chooses  .  .  .  thou  shalt  not  oppress  him.” 
Here  is  a  most  pregnant  verse  of  world-historic  significance. 
Ho  doubt,  it  had  a  history  already  in  the  times  of  Moses.  The 
cuneiform  inscriptions  may  yet  bring  it  to  light,  perhaps  as 
famous  as  that  of  Paris  and  Helena  and  the  war  of  Troy.  Per¬ 
haps  the  wars  and  civilizations  of  Assyria,  Babylonia  and 
Egypt  may  have  their  origin  in  runaway-slave  hordes,  and 
wars  raised  as  in  our  times,  to  enforce  their  surrender.  The 
fact  is,  the  history  of  Israel,  the  Exodus  from  Egypt,  began 


!Elohim  is  Justice,  Ihvh  is  Love  ,D'Omn  n“10  ,pin  mo 


MARRIED  WOMAN’S  STATUS  AND  DIVORCEMENT. 


119 


with  a  fugitive  Hebrao-Egyptian  princely  slave,  who  ran  away 
to  Midyan-Arabia  and  conceived  the  scheme  of  a  world-revolu¬ 
tion.  Had  Moses  been  delivered  by  Yethro  to  Pharaoh,1  the 
Exodus  would  never  have  taken  place.  If  the  fugitive  Moham¬ 
med  had  not  been  successful  in  Medinah,  he  would  have  been 
surrendered  to  the  Mecca  leaders  as  a  fugitive  slave,  and  the 
Koran  would  not  have  conquered  half  of  the  world. 

That  verse  has  a  history  in  our  great  American  Civil  War 
of  1860-5.  It  is  the  sympathy  of  the  Mosaic  Law  of  3,000 
years  ago,  with  the  slave  fleeing  for  his  liberty.  Whatever  the 
slave-owner  may  allege,  servitude  is  repugnant  to  human  nature 
and  to  ask  of  a  fellow-citizen  to  deliver  a  poor,  fleeing  serf  must 
be  most  repugnant,  yea,  revolting,  to  a  sympathizing  heart.  The 
Southern  half  of  the  United  States  would  not  recognize  it,  and 
insisted  upon  the  Northern  half  to  be  its  slave-catcher;  and  upon 
its  refusal  the  most  gigantic  civil  war  of  modern  times  was  its 
baneful  consequence,  with  an  immense  destruction  of  life,  prop¬ 
erty  and  happiness.  A  small  fraction  of  that  wasted  property 
would  have  paid  the  mercantile  value  of  the  entire  Southern 
black  population.  So  the  right  hand  lopped  off  the  left  one  of 
the  same  political  body.  Long  poverty,  bitter  feeling,  social  and 
economic  ruin  followed  at  once  the  Southern  non-recognition  of 
that  divine  law :  Deliver  not  the  slave  to  his  master.  What  a 
pity !  If  that  verse  had  been  better  taken  to  heart,  all  that  ruin 
and  bloodshed  might  have  been  avoided.  The  negro  should  have 
been  redeemed  by  indemnification,  a  money  compensation  to  the 
owners,  gradually  civilized  and  made  a  useful  and  potent  factor 
of  modern  industrial,  agricultural  and  cattle-breeding  pursuits. 
Let  us  hope  it  is  not  too  late. 

Married  Woman’s  Status  and  Divorcement. 

(V  M.,  24.1-5).  Here  is  another  safeguard  and  shield  for 
protecting  the  weak,  viz,  the  legal  position  and  dignity  of 
woman:  “If  a  man  marry  a  woman  and  he  displeased  with  her, 
having  found  in  her  something  shameful,2  then  he  shall  write  for 

According  to  an  Agadic  legend,  Yethro  actually  was  a  vassal  Emir  and 
courtier  of  the  Pharaoh,  owing  him  allegiance. 

nny  The  Shamaites  correctly  translate  it  so,  and  this  is  no  doubt 
its  literal  and  its  real  moral  sense. 


120 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


her  a  letter  of  divorcement,  and  hand  it  to  her  and  dismiss  her 
from  his  house.  If  then  she  leaves  and  becomes  the  wife  of  an¬ 
other  man,  and  that  one  too  divorces  her  or  dies  .  .  .  then  her 
first  husband  cannot  remarry  her  .  .  .  that  is  an  abomination 
.  .  .  and  thou  shalt  not  soil  the  land  God  has  given  thee  as  thy 
inheritance.”  Here  are  three  points  enacted  in  seemingly  one 
paragraph  and  on  one  subject.  It  emphasizes  chiefly  the  last, 
because  it  is  opposed  to  ancient  pre-Mosaic  custom.1  The  other 
two  confirm,  yet  improve  custom;  viz,  a  wife  may  be  divorced 
by  her  husband  when  something  shameful  is  found  out  against 
her,  not  on  any  other  plea;  then  she  shall  receive  a  letter  of  di¬ 
vorcement  and  at  once  leave  the  house ;  thus  an  official  document 
must  be  delivered  and  she  is  to  leave  the  house  by  judicial  de¬ 
cree.  So  far  the  Mosaic  Law  coincided  with,  but  greatly  im¬ 
proved  the  Oriental  custom ;  granting  only  upon  moral  grounds, 
a  public  and  official  separation.  How  comes  the  last  enactment, 
reversing  the  general  contemporaneous  views,  viz :  In  the  Ko¬ 
ran  we  read  that  a  divorced  wife  may  remarry  her  first  husband 
only  then,  when  she  had  been  in  the  meantime  the  wife  of  an¬ 
other  man  !  That  was  Arabic  custom.  Here  Mosaism  clashes  and 
states  the  very  contrary,  and  this  from  matured,  higher,  moral 
considerations :  A  divorced  woman  cannot  remarry  the  first 
husband  if  she  has  been  married  to  a  second  one  after  her  first 
divorcement,  this  being  a  defilement  of  the  marriage-tie,  degrad¬ 
ing  woman  and  man,  and  hence  an  abomination  before  the  Lord ! 
Thus  here  are  several  points  involved,  all  in  favor  of  woman¬ 
hood  :  Her  marital  rights  are  better  screened,  as  also  her  wom¬ 
anly  dignity ;  she  cannot  be  sent  off  without  good  cause,  and  she 
can  remarry  the  first  husband  only  then,  when  she  had  remained 
single  and  pure.  She  cannot,  if  she  had  remarried  and  been 
again  divorced  or  widowed.  That  is  infinitely  superior  to  the 
Arabian  custom.  The  School  of  ILillel,  following  their  method 
of  accommodation  and  concession  to  general  practice,  allowed 
divorce  for  any  cause.2  While  the  School  of  Shammai  clung  to 

'Custom  is  the  origin  of  law;  millennial  customs  are  sifted  and  selected 
by  the  lawgiver,  and  if  reasonable  and  useful,  are  legalized  and  sanctioned. 

nx  nmn  vtbn— ro»D  hnj  mns  nc’\x  nyd  G'Sn  This  conces- 
si  on  to  the  husbaud  shows  that  monogamy  was  prevalent  then.  But  the 
e  ntire  view  is  extremely  harsh  to  woman  and  can  be  explained  only  on  the 
plea  of  the  prevailing  “hardheartedness”  of  the  times. 


MOSAISM  AND  THE  ORIENT  ON  WOMAN. 


121 


the  literal,  plain  sense  of  Ervath  dabar ,  and  this  literal  sense  is 
also  its  real,  moral  sense.  The  Jewish  Agadists,  too,  adhere  to 
that,  declaring  that:  “Even  the  stones  of  the  altar  weep  at  the 
divorce  of  a  devoted  wife.”  That  woman  can  be  repudiated  at 
will  by  her  husband  is  a  stern  Oriental  fact  and  in  the  train  of 
polygamy,  and  that  fact  Mosaism  reduced  to  its  minimum.  The 
general  moral  view  is  given  in  Genesis,  II.,  24:  “Therefore  shall 
man  leave  his  father  and  his  mother  and  cling  to  his  wife,  and 
they  shall  be  one  person.”  The  moral  and  the  legal  Mosaic 
views  are  wise,  pure  and  beneficent,  showing  great  solicitude  for 
the  right  and  dignity  of  womanhood. 

Mosaism  and  the  Orient  on  Woman. 

Studying  carefully  and  independently  these  verses,  V  M., 
24.1-5,  and  without  being  biased  by  ancient  or  present  customs, 
or  by  the  comments,  sacred  and  profane,  on  that  theme,  looking 
to  the  text  here  and  in  I  M.,  2.18-25,  that  allegory  on  woman¬ 
hood  and  its  closing  morale,  considering  at  the  same  time  the 
Mosaic  view  of  man,  woman,  matrimony,  her  relation  to  the 
husband  and  position  in  the  family  and  state,  I  believe  that  the 
Shainmaite  School  and  the  Agadists  have  correctly  interpreted 
the  clause,1  “He  found  something  shameful  in  her,”  viz:  That 
it  really,  literally  and  morally  means  that  a  man  can  repudiate 
his  wife  only  on  the  ground  of  indecent  conduct.  Good  exege¬ 
sis,  common  sense  and  morality  coincide  with  that.  The  Hillel- 
ites  sided  with  the  then  practical  oriental  usages,  whereas  our 
text  upholds  the  law  of  nature  and  of  God,  as  in  Genesis,  I.,  24, 
making  woman  the  helpmate  and  companion  of  man,  not  his 
toy  and  colibri,  to  be  dismissed  at  a  despotic  whim. 

Nevertheless,  this  very  passage  was  stamped  as  a  standing 
reproach  to  the  Bible,  by  ignorance  and  prejudice  claiming  that 
Mosaism  has  degraded  woman,  has  put  her  at  the  mercy  of  a 
brutal  husband,  as  his  mere  dependency,  as  fashioned  from  his 
bone,  an  afterthought  of  creation,  his  drudge,  toy  and  slave,  to 
fill  his  polygamous  harem,  intimating  that  she  has  brought  him 


hm  rrny 


122 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


sin  and  misfortune  as  her  dower,  and  that  therefore  she  is  just¬ 
ly  and  naturally  liable,  at  a  moment’s  notice,  to  be  sent  off  upon 
any  of  man’s  caprices  and  whims.  Now  facts  and  history  show 
the  very  contrary :  The  woman  of  Asia,  long  before  the  Bible, 
was  deemed  and  assumed  as  a  being  without  rights  or  duties,  or 
any  moral  sense ;  a  toy  and  a  drudge ;  no  marriage  and  no  legal 
separation,  but  simple  possession ;  or  cast  off  as  a  garment — by 
the  mere  whim  of  her  master.  The  fact  is:  Woman  was  indeed 
uplifted  by  the  Bible,  declared  a  moral,  intelligent,  soul-gifted 
being,  the  worthy  half  and  helpmeet  of  man.  A  toy  or  a  drudge 
she  was  in  Asia ;  even  such  was  Greek  Pandora ;  such  even 
Helena,  the  ideal  Greek  woman;  she  eloped  with  her  lover; 
brought  destruction  upon  both,  her  old  and  her  new  country, 
Sparta  and  Troy,  and  betrayed  them  both  at  the  crisis  of  the 
war.  So  she  is  depicted  as  a  mischievous  creature,  made  for 
man’s  misfortune.  Still  her  husband,  Menelaos,  and  she  were  to 
be  translated  to  Elysium;  the  unworthy,  the  “dog-eyed,”  still 
the  daughter  of  Zeus.1 

Of  another  texture  is  the  Biblical  woman :  “It  is  not  good 
man  shall  be  alone,  I  shall  make  him  a  helpmeet”  .  .  .  and 
man  actually  accepts  her  as  such  (Genesis,  II.,  9-25).  Man¬ 
kind,  the  species,  man,  is  made  of  male  and  female,  both  to 
work,  multiply  and  rule  over  the  earth. 

The  same  view  we  find  here  (V  M.,  24.1).  Anciently, 
woman  was  unfree,  bought  by  the  master ;  there  was  no  free 
choice,  no  marriage  of  two  free  parties,  and  no  mutual  selection 
and  consent.  The  master  possessed  her,  or  sent  her  off,  or  mal¬ 
treated  her,  or  even  sold  her  again  to  another  master,  or  took 
her  back,  all  on  the  same  one-sided  terms.  Our  chapter  greatly 
modified  and  improved  these  conditions,  in  favor  of  womanhood  ; 
assuming  a  new  standpoint,  a  new  principle  and  arriving  at 
new  results ;  viz :  She  is  a  free  person,  has  rights  and  duties,  is 
a  wife,  not  a  toy,  nor  drudge,  and  she  can  be  repudiated  only  for 
a  grave  cause,  viz,  Ervath  dabar,  a  shameful  thing  which  may 
mean,  possibly,  infidelity,  or  at  least  flagrant  indiscretion,  inde- 

'Homer’s  Ilias,  VI.  343  .  .  .  and  Homer’s  Odyssea,  IV.  561  .  .  . 


SHAMMAITES,  HILLELITES  AND  LATER  RABBIS  ON  IT. 


123 


cent  conduct.  Then  she  shall  not  be  poisoned,  stripped  and 
whipped  or  killed,  or  sold  as  a  slave,  as  in  other  codes,1  Oriental 
and  Occidental,  Ho  !  but  by  legal  procedure,  after  public  judg¬ 
ment,  a  letter  of  divorce  is  to  be  handed  to  her,  before  witnesses, 
after  due  time  and  reflection ;  not  by  caprice  and  the  spur  of 
passion.  The  next  provision  is :  If  after  repudiation  she  be  re¬ 
married  to  another  husband  and  becomes  then  again  free,  she 
cannot  remarry  the  first  husband,  for  that  is  beastly,  unwor¬ 
thy  of  the  conjugal  union  and  of  civilized  society.  It  degrades 
woman  again  to  a  drudge  and  a  toy,  a  slave  and  chattel  of  a 
brutal  master. 

Looking  now  to  the  present  practice  on  such  occasions,  we 
hear  generally  two  theories  prevailing.  When  there  arises  per¬ 
sonal  dislike  from  incompatibility  of  character,  or  unproved  im¬ 
morality,  some  codes  declare  for  no  separation  at  all,  and  the 
yoke  to  continue ;  hence  quarrel,  scandal  and  murder,  a  poor  ex¬ 
ample  to  the  children,  and  marriage  whispered  or  proclaimed  a 
curse  and  a  failure.  Another  mode  is:  Easy  accommodation, 
frivolous  decree  of  divorce  with  gossip,  malicious  chuckling,  bit¬ 
ter  regret  and  sacrifice  of  the  children,  innocent  victims  of  easy¬ 
going  society.  Our  text  seems  to  allow  but  indecent,  immoral 
conduct  as  a  cause  for  divorce,  only  then  it  prefers  separation, 
in  the  interest  of  marriage,  man,  woman,  the  children  and  the 
community,  and  that  seems  the  best  to  be  done  in  the  doubtful 
and  equivocal  circumstances  of  an  insincere  union. 

Shammaites,  Hillelites  and  Later  Rabbis  on  it. 

We  have  spoken  of  the  Shammaite  view.  The  Rabbis,  follow¬ 
ing  rather  the  School  of  Hillel,  take  a  middle  course  between 
these  two  extremes  mentioned.  Influenced  also  by  the  general 
practice  of  the  times,  on  the  one  hand  they  accept  many  grave 
causes  as  a  ground  for  separation,  and  on  the  other  they  moral¬ 
ly  persuade  parties  to  have  patience  with  each  other.  Grounds 
for  divorce  are :  Infidelity,  barrenness,  incompatibility,  gross 

’See  Tacitus,  Germania;  Roman  XII  Tables  or  Code  Justinianus  on  that. 
The  old  Teutonic  German  stripped  the  adulteress,  chased  and  whipped  her 
through  the  village,  even  to  death. 


124 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


frivolity  of  character  and  irreligion.  After  careful  deliberation 
the  Judge  grants  a  letter  of  divorcement,  and  she  leaves  the 
house.  This  is  the  Rabbinico-Hillelite  way  of  considering  mar¬ 
riage  and  divorce.  Its  standpoint  is  not  the  advanced  Bible 
ideal,  but  practical  necessity,  general  usage. 

Otherwise  is,  no  doubt,  the  Biblical  view;  this  is  the  indis¬ 
solubility  of  the  matrimonial  union.  The  allegory  is  (I  M., 
2.23)  :  “Bone  of  my  bone  and  flesh  of  my  flesh — both  forming 
one  person.”  And  this  ideal  of  the  conjugal  bond  is  generally 
followed  up  in  Pentateuch,  Bible  and  Agada.  The  history 
of  the  Patriarchs  does  not  militate  against  that.  It  shows 
rather  that  their  decided  personal  inclination  was  towards  mo¬ 
nogamy  and  that  they  were  not  the  authors,  but  the  victims  of 
the  public  institution  of  polygamy  and  serfdom,  then  universally 
prevailing.  So  was  Abraham,  by  custom  prevailing  then,  com¬ 
pelled  to  act,  and  so  J acob ;  they  became  polygamists  not  volun¬ 
tarily,  but  by  the  force  of  law  and  circumstances,  vis  major. 
Isaac  was  and  remained  a  monogamist.  The  Israelites  of  the 
II.  Commonwealth  were  prevailingly  and  generally  a  monoga¬ 
mous  people.  There  the  women  were  well  treated,  and  so  were 
the  slaves  also.  Josephus  narrates  that  Gentile  women  of  his 
time  were,  on  that  account,  favorably  disposed  towards  Judaism. 
Such  were  the  women  of  the  leading  cities :  Alexandria,  Antio- 
chia,  Damascus,  Athens,  Rome.  And  that  favorable  opinion  of 
Judaism  brought  them  soon  to  the  fold  of — Christianity,  an  ab¬ 
breviated,  mitigated  Judaism,  Judaism  without  its  host  of  cere¬ 
monies,  national  observances  and  racial  reminiscences.  They 
sighed  for  that  religious,  moral  and  social  uplifting;  to  exchange 
the  position  of  Pandora  for  that  of  Eve,  the  mother  of  the 
family  and  man’s  companion,  wife  and  helpmeet.1 

Among  the  Jews  in  the  Orient,  following  the  example  of  the 
Mohammedans,  rare,  isolated  cases  of  polygamy  were  yet  to  be 
found,  until,  in  the  thirteenth  century,  Rabbi  Gershom  and  the 
Western  Rabbinate  prohibited  it  entirely  and  it  became  extinct.2 

'Gen.  II  &  III  pn  ^3  DN — VUIJ3  ~ltj ODStfD  DYJJ 
133-n  Din 


SHAMMAITES,  HILLELITES  AND  LATER  RABBIS  ON  IT.  125 

In  later  years  of  the  Middle  Ages  and  in  the  East  even  re¬ 
cently,  frivolous  marrying  and  divorcing,  even  without  the  con¬ 
sent  of  the  woman,  were  practiced.  That  found  its  authority 
among  some  Rabbis  of  the  Gaonaic  period,  leaning  to  the  view 
of  the  Hillelite  School,  that  a  man  can  repudiate  his  wife  even 
for  any  trifle,  wilfully,  when  she  had  burnt  his  dinner,  or  even 
if  he  found  a  prettier  one.  But  gradually  a  soberer  view,  in 
conformity  with  the  Pentateuch,  Prophets  and  Agadists  pre¬ 
vailed,  that  marriage  is  a  most  sacred  institution,  the  ground¬ 
work  of  society,  and  that  only  gross  immorality  or  decided  in¬ 
compatibility  of  character  justify  divorce;  which  divorce,  if  im¬ 
perious  and  necessary,  must  be  consummated  by  an  official  act 
and  document,  from  a  competent  Court  of  Justice.  By  all  this, 
viz :  Careful  selection  and  courtship,  solemn  public  marriage, 
absolute  union  of  interests,  no  frivolous  divorce,  nor  marrying 
and  remarrying,  and  divorce  only  on  extreme,  grave  grounds, 
matrimony  was  strengthened.  All  that  tended  towards  the  ele¬ 
vation  of  woman,  marriage  and  the  family,  to  make  the  Jewish 
conjugal  union  a  golden  bond  of  happiness,  not  a  chain  of  mis¬ 
fortunes.  The  Biblical  marital  life  has  been  historically  recog¬ 
nized,  even  in  the  Ghetto,  as  the  noblest,  purest  and  most  endur¬ 
ing.  It  has  become  the  model  and  pattern  of  the  civilized  world. 
Morality,  wisdom,  peace  and  family  interests  point  to  that  pol¬ 
ity.  Catholic  France  and  Protestant  England  and  more  or  less 
the  rest  of  Europe  gradually  steer  towards  that  course.  The 
Fnited  States,  in  Law,  and  mostly  in  practice,  fully  adopted  it, 
viz :  That  only  grossly  indecent  conduct  or  invincible  incompati¬ 
bility  of  character  are  legitimate  grounds  for  divorce,  and  that 
no  woman  can  remarry  her  first  husband  after  she  has  had  an¬ 
other  husband,  considering  that  to  be  an  abomination  to  God  and 
to  civilized  society. 

The  Biblical  matrimonial  relations  have  brought  about  our 
modern  civilized  family,  so  superior  to  those  of  3,000  years  ago 
in  Phoenicia,  Babylonia,  Athens  and  Sparta,  all  symbolized  by 
the  myths  of  Pandora  and  Helena.  In  opposition  to  that  Ori¬ 
ental  myth  the  Hebrew  Agada  narrates :  “When  God  was  about 
to  deliver  the  Law  to  mankind,  he  convoked  all  the  nations  of  the 


126 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


earth  ancl  proposed :  To  which  nation  shall  I  entrust  that  treas¬ 
ure  ?  Who  is  most  prepared  and  worthy  to  receive  and  to  hold  it 
in  trust  for  all  mankind  ?  Each  of  the  nations  shouted :  I !  I ! 
shall  have  it.  I  am  strong,  I  am  rich,  I  am  brave !  That  is  not 
enough,  the  divine  legislator  replied :  where  is  woman  most  re¬ 
spected  and  most  worthy  of  respect  ?  Where  is  marriage  most 
sacred  ?  Where  is  the  wife  and  mother  purest,  faithful,  kind 
and  self-sacrificing  ?  At  that  criterion  the  Gentile  nations  be¬ 
came  silent !  The  Pandora  patterns  retired  and  left  the  arena  to 
Eve,  Sarah,  Deborah,  Esther,  the  Biblical  models  of  woman¬ 
hood,  and  our  present  civilized  society  copies  these  ideals ;  the 
modern  family  has  its  roots  in  the  Bible.1 

Woman  in  Bible  and  Talmud. 

Far  superior  than  in  the  Orient  was  woman’s  status  in  Judaea, 
the  Bible  and  the  Talmud.  There  monogamy  was  the  rule, 
polygamy  the  rare  exception ;  it  could  take  place  only  for  stated, 
legally  admitted  causes.  The  claim  that  the  Hillelite  School  al¬ 
lowed  indiscriminately  repudiation  and  wife  plurality  is  erro¬ 
neous.  Ever  the  rule  prevailed :  “Therefore  man  shall  cleave  to 
his  wife,  both  to  form  one  person”  (I  M.,  2.24).  She  was  the 
wife,  freely  chosen  and  freely  obtained ;  both  parties  were  free 
and  both  selected  freely.  The  father,  in  Judaea,  was  not  allowed, 
as  elsewhere,  to  give  away  his  daughter  without  her  full  consent, 
except  in  abject  poverty,  without  any  means  of  supporting  her, 
and  this  only  during  her  childhood,  and  he  was  ever  bound  to 
redeem  her.  The  honorably  behaving  wife  and  mother  could 
not  be  divorced,  nor  a  rival  set  up  at  her  side. 

Such  was  the  case  of  Sara  and  Hagar.  As  soon  as  the  first 
became  a  d&  facto  mother,  the  latter  had  to  resign  her  place.2 
Her  children  inherited  of  her  and  of  the  father.  She  could  hold 
property  of  her  own,  by  inheritance  or  by  gift.  Her  social  stand¬ 
ing  was  in  accordance  with  that,  dignified,  publicly  acknowl¬ 
edged,  becoming  a  free,  responsible  wife,  matron  and  mother. 

'See  my  “Biblical  Legislation,”  page  33. 

’Such,  too,  was  the  reigning  law  of  Hammurabi ;  see  further  on. 


WOMAN  IN  BIBLE  AND  TALMUD. 


12  7 

She  was  the  mistress  of  the  house,  advising  with  her  husband,  on 
terms  of  equality,  assisting  in  building  up  the  house  (“A  wise 
woman  builds  her  house” — Proverbs).  Such  fully  recognized 
personages  were  Sara,  Rebecca,  Rachel  and  Leah ;  Miriam 
claimed  even  prophecy  and  rivaled  Moses  in  leadership.  Such 
were  Debora,  Hanna,  Hulda.  We  find  woman  as  a  national 
leader,  a  warrior,  a  patriot,  a  protector  of  the  law  and  the  coun¬ 
try.  Numerous  examples  of  her  bold  and  magnanimous  initia¬ 
tive,  her  aggressive,  chivalrous  heroism  and  self-sacrifice  are  nar¬ 
rated  in  Sacred  Scriptures  and  Apochrypha. 

In  the  Talmud  we  find  many  fluctuations  concerning  woman’s 
legal  position  and  civic  standing,  vacillating  between  that  of  the 
Biblical  and  Egyptian,  Occidental  standpoint,  and  that  of  the 
Oriental,  Babylonian  and  Arabian  one.  Morally,  the  Jewish 
husband  was  bound  to  act  up  to  the  Mosaic  pattern,  monogamy : 
“Therefore  shall  man  leave  his  father  and  mother  and  cleave  to 
his  wife,  and  form  with  her  one  person,  one  unit.”  But  legally 
he  could  follow  the  general  custom,  influenced  by  the  Statutes 
of  the  Babylonian  Hammurabi  then  prevailing  in  the  Orient. 
Even  this  Statute  did  not  allow  divorce  by  caprice.  The  Jewish 
Moralists  are  following  the  view  implied  in :  ‘‘Man  shall  cleave 
to  his  wife,”  as  alluded  to. 

We  add  here  a  few  passages  culled  from  Talmud  and  Mid- 
rashim :  “Ever  make  an  effort  to  marry  the  daughter  of  a  learned 
man. — A  good  woman  is  sympathetic  and  modest,  talks  in  a  low 
voice  and  never  laughs  boisterously. — When  in  want,  she  must 
first  be  provided ;  in  captivity,  she  first  be  ransomed ;  man  comes 
after  woman. — He  who  is  not  married  is  hardly  a  (complete) 
man. — A  single  man  knows  not  happiness. — A  wife  is  the  house 
of  a  man. — A  man  shall  first  learn  a  trade,  then  build  a  house, 
then  marry  a  wife;  fools  act  in  the  contrary  way. — Woman  is 
man’s  joy,  solace  and  ornament;  with  her  comes  good  luck. — To 
wrong  her,  to  repudiate  one’s  first  wife,  even  the  mute  stones  of 
the  altar  shed  tears. — Israel  was  redeemed  from  Egypt  on  ac¬ 
count  of  their  virtuous  women. — The  Thora  was  given  to  Israel 
on  the  same  consideration. — That  house  is  blessed  where  woman 


128 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


is  well  treated  and  respected. — Is  she  of  small  stature,  man  shall 
bow  to  her ;  if  tall,  he  shall  rise  to  her.” 

But  contrary  passages,  describing  her  as  vain,  loquacious,  idle, 
light-hearted,  prying,  fond  of  display  and  of  gossip,  are  not 
missing,  either,  in  the  Talmud.  Still,  on  the  whole,  her  social 
position  is  by  far  higher  than  elsewhere  in  the  entire  Orient. 
Generally  she  is  pictured  as  the  granddaughter  of  Eve  and  of 
Sara ;  not  seldom  as  inferior  to  man,  his  ward  and  dependency ; 
but  never  as  mischievous  and  wilfully  wicked,  born  for  man’s 
misfortune,  as  is  the  Greek  dubious  woman-pattern,  Pandora. 
In  the  Agada  she  is  either  a  reliable  stay  and  helpmate  to  man, 
or  his  innocent,  pleasant,  garrulous  dependency ;  but  never  is  she 
viewed  as  a  she-devil,  a  Circe,  Loreley,  as  is  her  Greek  cousin. 
The  saying  is :  “Every  man  has  the  wife  he  deserves.”  God  said, 
I  shall  make  for  man  an  assistant,  a  help,  opposite  to  him.1  The 
Babbis  wittily  expound :  If  man  deserves,  she  is  a  solid  help ;  if 
not,  she  is  an  opponent.  The  Psalms,  Proverbs  and  Apochrypha 
refer  often  to  her  in  both  modes.  She  is  the  emblem  of  the 
best,  noblest,  kindest  and  purest.  She  often  impersonates  wis¬ 
dom,  virtue,  intelligence;  the  mystical  Schecina  is  the  Deity  in 
female  drapery ;  angels  are  ever  imagined  in  the  shape  of 
woman !  She  is  the  pattern  of  beauty,  grace  and  sympathy. 
She  is  the  masterpiece  of  creation.  The  Hebrao-Arabian  Mo¬ 
hammed  often  rapturously  and  explicitly  terms  her  God’s  earth¬ 
ly  masterpiece.  Goethe  alludes  thus  humorously  to  her  in  his 
“Faust”  :  “When  a  God  toils  for  six  days  and  then  shouts  Bravo ! 
applauding  himself,  that  must  be  something  superb !”  But  this 
he  puts  into  the  mouth  of  Mephistopheles,  the  arch-devil. 

At  other  times  Sacred  Scripture2  warns  most  gravely:  “Be¬ 
ware  of  her  tricks,  snares  and  beguiling  charms,  her  Siren  songs 
and  her  Scylla  and  Charybdis  precipices.”  But  with  this  great 
difference :  What  the  Greek  Pandora-myth  assumes  as  the  uni¬ 
versal  characteristics  of  the  sex,  Bib  leand  Talmud  attribute  to 

lEzer  Kenegdo,  literally,  a  help  opposite  to  him ;  essentially  it  means,  an 
assistant  by  his  side.  The  Rabbis  expounded  it  both  ways,  implying  a 
deep  psychological  observation  :  Each  party  has  the  consort  it  deserves. 

tProv.,  and  more  so,  Apochrypha. 


WOMAN  IN  BIBLE  AND  TALMUD. 


129 


personal,  special  depravity,  as  exceptional  traits,  as  the  picture 
of  a  degenerate  female  exemplar. 

Sometimes  we  find  in  the  Talmud  a  passage  of  a  full-length 
female  portrait,  apparently  of  the  Pandora  delineation  and  pat¬ 
tern,  as  this:  Converse  not  much  with  woman  .  .  .  even  with 
thine  own  wife,  the  less  so  with  thy  neighbor’s  spouse  .  .  .  and 
who  transgresses  this  will  remember  it  in  hell.”1  This  is  a 
gloomy  view ;  still  it  is  not  the  Greek  view  of  female  depravity, 
original  and  constitutional ;  here  is  not  so  much  the  distrust  to¬ 
wards  the  sex,  as  towards  sinful, wicked  human  nature, the  weak¬ 
ness  of  all  flesh,  without  regard  to  sex.  We  must  here  reckon 
with  the  ardent  temperament  of  the  Oriental,  the  Arab  and  the 
Babylonian,  which  the  Mishna  had  in  view.  Here  is,  moreover, 
the  Asiatic  pessimism  re-echoed,  which  the  Jewish  minority 
could  not  help  imbibing  from  their  Arabian  and  Syrian  sur¬ 
rounding  majorities.  Such  warning  was  not  meant,  specially,  as 
a  censure  of  woman,  but  generally  as  a  timely  challenge  for 
moral  self-restraint,  for  avoiding  any  and  all  frivolous  gossip. 
“Woman”  was  here  simply  an  emblem  of  passion,  just  as  on 
other  occasions,  she  was  the  symbol  of  wisdom,  grace,  kindness. 
On  the  whole  Talmud  and  Agada,  though  legally  they  were  most¬ 
ly  following  the  trend  of  surrounding  Babylonian  views,  and 
granting  to  man  prerogatives  over  woman,  still  practically  and 
in  fact  they  came  up  to  the  only  rational  view-point,  of  the  Bible  : 
“God  created  man  in  his  own  image  (intelligent  and  moral)  ;  he 
created  them  male  and  female,  two  halves,  completing  each  other, 
and  blessed  them,  saying:  Multiply  and  increase,  subdue  the 
earth  and  reign  over  it  .  .  .  and  that  was  very  good.” 

As  to  the  later  passage  in  Deuteronomy  concerning  divorce,  we 
shall  subsequently  see  that  divorcement  was  far  from  being  an 
original  Mosaic  institution.  Ho;  it  was  an  old  custom,  rooting 
in  the  habits,  views  and  laws  of  the  times  with  which  the  Mosaic 
Lawgiver  had  to  reckon.  That  general  Oriental  custom  crys¬ 
tallized  into  law,  he  circumscribed,  mitigated  and  bound  up  to 
norms,  removing  them  from  arbitrariness,  but  taking  into  ac- 

'Aboth  Dima  Knv  isidi  ,wan  ntrx  Dy  nrrp  nmn 


130 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


count  “man’s  hardheartedness.”  He  made  every  effort  to  har¬ 
monize  it,  as  much  as  possible,  with  the  higher  Biblical  view  of 
justice,  freedom  and  equality  of  both  the  sexes.  And  this  higher 
and  corrector  standjioint  gradually  grew  and  expanded  in  and  be¬ 
yond  Judaea,  to  Western  Asia,  Europe,  North  Africa  and  Amer¬ 
ica.  It  expanded  with  the  corresponding  expansion  of  Christen¬ 
dom,  the  dissemination  of  the  Bible,  with  its  emancipating  doc¬ 
trines  and  enfranchising  new  principles  of  right,  dignity  and 
protection  to  both  the  sexes  and  to  all  the  classes  alike,  as  we 
shall  later  on  enlarge,  here  and  on  other  occasions.1 

And  this  settles  the  discussion  about  the  old  question,  "which 
raised  most  the  status  of  woman  ?  the  Hebraic  Bible  or  Gentile 
Christianity  ?  The  Bible,  undoubtedly,  rescued  and  elevated  her 
condition  from  Oriental  degradation,  caprice  and  lawlessness. 
It  did  that  theoretically,  by  its  ethical  doctrines  of  man’s  and 
woman’s  divine  creation,  common  origin,  common  dignity,  and 
their  practical,  human,  purposeful  object,  both  to  “work  and  to 
reign.”  Christianity  continued  and  expanded  that  view,  by 
bringing  that  Hebraic,  Biblical  view  and  ethics  into  the  reach 
of  mankind  at  large,  educating  the  Western  races  to  that  higher, 
new  view-point,  that  new  revelation  of  human  dignity  and  the 
equality  of  the  sexes.  The  task  of  human  civilization,  of  mental 
and  moral  education,  of  emancipation  from  despotism  and  preju¬ 
dice,  is  vast  and  grand  enough  to  satisfy  all  claims  and  the 
ambitions  of  all  our  historical  initiators.  There  is  room  for  every 
effort  and  every  noble  activity.  Let  there  be  no  jealousy.  Let 
every  creed,  race  and  age  do  the  best  for  human  advance.  There 
is  reward  in  the  stores  of  Providence  for  all  liberating  forces. 


'See  Esther  and  woman’s  position,  in  my  vol.  on  “Biblical  Holidays.” 


RABBINICAL  MARRIAGE  AND  DIVORCE  LAWS. 


131 


CHAPTER  VL 

Rabbinical  Marriage  and  Divorce  Laws. 

Maimonid.  Yad  Hahs,  Marriage  Laws:  (I.)  Since  Israel  has 
received  the  Thora,  when  a  man  wishes  to  marry  a  woman,  he 
first  must  acquire  her  before  two  witnesses ;  then  it  is  lawful  for 
her  to  become  his  wife.  (II.)  This  acquisition  takes  place  in 
three  ways  :  by  money,  by  a  written  contract  and  by  cohabitation. 
This  acquisition  is  termed  consecration  or  betrothal.1  (III.) 
Then  the  woman  is  to  be  considered  as  married,  though  she  is 
not  yet  in  the  house  of  her  husband  .  .  . 

(5.)  Leviticus,  18.,  enumerates  many  cases  of  incest,  viz, 
cases  when  conjugal  unions  are  strictly  forbidden  (as  an  abomi¬ 
nation),  on  the  penalty  of  extirpation,  Choroth,  .  .  . 

(6.)  There  are,  besides,  some  rabbinically  forbidden  mar¬ 
riages,  incest  of  second  degree ;  making  up  all  together  20  cases 
of  incest  or  Talmudically  forbidden  marital  unions  (besides  the 
Biblical  ones)  .  .  . 

(7.)  The  penalty  for  trespassing  some  of  these  cases,  prohib¬ 
ited  by  the  Thora  or  Sacred  Writ,  is  extirpation.  But  of  some 
it  is,  besides,  rabbinically,  39  stripes.  Some  such  cases  are  pro¬ 
hibiting  ordinances,  and  some  others  are  affirmative  ones. 

(II.,  1.)  A  girl  is,  from  her  birth  until  12  years  of  age,  a 
minor;  after  12  (and  one  day)  years  and  the  appearance  of  the 
signs  of  her  puberty,  she  is  a  young  girl,  Naare ;  and  after  12^3 
years  of  age  she  is  termed  adult  girl,2  young  woman. 

(3.)  Such  she  is  when  she  has  the  natural  signs  of  puberty. 
If  she  shows  no  such  signs,  she  remains  a  minor  till  her  twen¬ 
tieth  year,  which  period  may  be  prolonged  even  to  her  35th  year 
(when  she  is  assumed  as  naturally  impuber,  but  adult). 

(10.)  A  boy  is  from  his  birth  to  13  years  of  age,  a  minor; 
after  13  years  and  bearing  the  signs  of  puberty,  he  is  an  adult, 
a  man  (assuming  all  the  rights  and  duties  of  such). 

Tonal  pb'hd 
Jmm  ,myj  ,roop 


132 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


(11.)  But  if  the  puberty  signs  are  not  conspicuous  at  13,  then 
he  remains  a  minor  even  to  20  years,  and  even  so  further  on  to 
35  years  of  age  (when  he  is  assumed  as  naturally  impuber,  but 
an  adult). 

(III.,  1.)  The  act  of  consecration  or  acquisition  of  a  wife 
must  be  performed  by  the  man,  in  handing  to  the  woman  at  least 
a  Prita,  about  a  cent,  or  its  value  in  goods,  saying :  “By  this  be 
thou  consecrated  to  me,”  in  presence  of  witnesses.  (This  is  the 
actual  legal  part  of  the  matrimonial  transaction.) 

(3.-5.)  Or  he  writes  down  these  words,  as  an  express  agree¬ 
ment,  and  hands  it  to  her  before  witnesses.  The  same  is  the 
formula  of  the  third  mode  of  consecration  (mentioned  above). 

(6.)  Whatever  the  consecration  words  be,  they  must  ever 
convey  the  clear  idea  that  he,  the  man,  acquires  the  woman  as 
his  wife,  not  that  he  gives  himself  away  to  her  as  husband  etc. 
(thus  maintaining  the  Oriental  idea  of  buying  a  wife). 

(8.)  This  marriage  formula  may  be  pronounced  in  any  lan¬ 
guage  she  understands. 

(11.)  A  father  may  marry  away  his  minor  daughter,  without 
her  consent.  (This  Oriental,  hoary  right  is  limited  to  a  mini¬ 
mum  by  the  Rabbis  and  rarely  practiced.  Elsewhere  it  was  fre¬ 
quently  practiced  by  parents.) 

(12.)  If  she  is  12^2  years  old,  an  adult  woman,  she  is  free 
and  independent,  and  cannot  be  married  without  her  consent, 

(18.)  The  marriage  consecration  actus  can  also  take  place  by 
proxy,  and  of  both  the  parties  (each  authorizing  a  delegate  to 
contract  in  his  or  her  stead). 

(19.)  But  it  is  more  becoming  that  the  parties  perform  it  by 
themselves,  personally.  Ror  should  a  father  marry  away  his 
minor  daughter  without  her  consent,  though  it  is  legal.  It  is 
ordained  by  the  Sages  that  both  parties  must  be  adult,  both  give 
their  consent,  after  having  seen  and  pleased  each  other. 

(20.)  The  custom  is  that  marriage  takes  place  by  money  or 
money’s  worth,  or  by  written  contract,  but  not  by  cohabitation 
(the  marriage  ring  is  a  later  custom,  at  least  so  among  Jews). 

(22.)  There  shall  also  be  courtship  of  the  parties  before  mar¬ 
riage. 

Fluegel’s  “Humanity,  Benevolence  and  Charity  of  the  Pentateuch. 


RABBINICAL  MARRIAGE  AND  DIVORCE  LAWS. 


133 


(IV.,  6.)  A  marriage  before  one  witness,  or  no  witnesses  at 
all,  or  illegal  witnesses,  is  not  valid. 

(8.)  A  minor  girl  married  to  a  man  and  displeased  with  him, 
must  say  before  two  witnesses:  “I  like  him  not,”  and  leave  him 
without  any  further  document  of  divorce  {Get). 

(12.)  The  marriage  of  an  incestuous  couple,  in  first  degree,  is 
null  and  void. 

(14.)  Incest  of  second  degree  (only  rabbinically  forbidden, 
an  extension  of  the  original  Biblical  prohibition)  is  legal.  So 
are  the  marriages  only  negatively  or  affirmatively1  prohibited. 

(15.)  Marriage  between  Jew  and  heathen  (idol  worshippers) 
or  Jew  and  slave,  either  side,  is  null  and  void.  Marriage  with 
an  apostate  party  is  binding. 

(X.,  1.)  The  betrothed  woman  is  forbidden  to  her  intended, 
by  rabbinical  ordinance,  as  long  as  she  is  in  her  father’s  house. 
He  must  bring  her  to  his  house,  and  be  with  her,  as  his  wife. 
This  union  is  termed :  Occupying  the  Hupa ,  the  nuptial  room 
(usually  symbolized  by  the  canopy  where  the  nuptial  ceremony 
takes  place). 

(2.)  After  that  she  is  his  wife  in  every  respect,  and  is  termed 
a  married  wife  from  the  moment  they  have  entered  the  Hupa, 
if  even  the  cohabitation  have  not  yet  taken  place. 

(7.)  Before  the  final  marriage,  the  bridegroom  obligates  him¬ 
self  in  writing,  termed  Kethuba,  to  a  certain  sum  in  favor  of  his 
bride,  no  less  than  200  dinars  to  a  maiden,  and  a  hundred  to  a 
widow.  He  may  increase  the  sum  as  much  as  he  pleases,  Those- 
foth ;  the  original  sum  and  the  increase  are  equally  valid. 

(XVI.,  1.)  The  wife’s  dower  brought  from  home,  Nedunya, 
is  extra  that  promise.  If  the  husband  is  responsible  for  its 
safety,  he  can  administer  it.  If  he  is  not  responsible,  she  alone 
disposes  of  it.2  (The  usufruct  belongs  to  him  in  either  case.) 

(2.)  Even  so  is  all  other  property  of  the  wife,  not  given  to 
the  husband,  and  come  to  her  after  her  marriage,  all  remains  her 
own  property  and  is  to  be  disposed  of  by  herself,  the  husband 
having  no  power  over  it. 

1Is8urai  lawin,  We-Easin,  prohibitive  and  affirmative  commandments. 

'D3J  Ora  |NN  'D33 


134 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


(3.)  As  to  the  Ketliuba,  that  constitutes  a  debt  of  the  hus¬ 
band  to  be  paid  when  he  dies  or  when  he  divorces  his  wife.  (So 
is  the  dower  she  brings  from  her  parental  home.) 

(XVIII.,  1.)  The  widow  is  to  be  supported  by  the  heirs 
during  all  the  time  of  her  widowhood,  until  she  receives  her  legal 
endowment,  Ketliuba  and  Neduniali,  or  personal  dower.  As 
soon  as  she  asks  for  that,  she  loses  her  right  for  support. 

(XIX.,  1.)  It  is  a  condition  of  the  Ketliuba  that  the  sons 
of  the  deceased  wife  inherited  her  legal  endowment,  or  Ketliuba 
proper,  as  also  her  extra  personal  dower,  which  she  had  brought 
in  at  her  marriage.  ( Nedunya  and  Ketliuba  both  are  known  to 
the  Hammurabi  Code,  2250  B.  C.  In  fact,  many  marital  en¬ 
actments  are  common  to  both.)  This  done,  they  inherit  of  the 
father’s  estate  in  equal  shares  with  their  brothers  (of  the  other 
wives  of  the  father). 

(2.)  This  takes  place  only  when,  after  paying  off  such  wifely 
endowments,  there  still  remains  something  to  be  divided  out  as 
inheritance  to  the  sons  from  the  father,  which  is  a  Scriptural 
duty  (and  must  be  fulfilled). 

The  reader  will  see  that  the  drift  and  spirit  of  these  marriage 
and  inheritance  laws  are  hoary,  conceived  in  the  Oriental  atmos¬ 
phere,  that  of  polygamy,  with  divers  sets  of  children,  many 
families  and  households  and  interests  under  one  pater  familias, 
the  jealousy  among  the  heirs  and  the  rapacity  of  the  several 
stepmothers  and  wives.  Hence  the  great  anxiety  of  the  law 
for  the  interests  of  the  juvenile  orphans  and  heirs,  and  its  sus¬ 
picions  of  designing,  unscrupulous  stepmothers  and  quarrelling 
multiple  widows  of  the  same  husband,  now  in  the  grave. 

(2.-5.)  Before  she  receives  her  dower  etc.  she  is  to  be,  by  the 
heirs,  supported,  clothed,  furnished  and  housed,  in  the  same 
dwelling  and  with  the  same  furniture  and  slaves  as  during  her 
marital  life;  she  uses  the  identical  house,  household  goods,  slaves 
etc.  that  she  did  during  her  husband’s  life  .  .  .  The  heirs  can¬ 
not  sell  that,  dwelling,  utensils,  furniture;  as  long  as  they  are  of 
usage  she  uses  them.  When  sick  she  must  be  taken  care  of,  and 
when  dead,  honorably  buried  by  the  heirs. 


RABBINICAL  MARRIAGE  AND  DIVORCE  LAWS. 


135 


(XIX.,  10.)  It  is  a  condition  of  the  Kethuba  that  the  daugh¬ 
ters  are  to  be  supported  from  the  father’s  estate,  until  their  be¬ 
trothal  or  adult  age. 

(11.)  Of  the  same  fatherly  estate  the  daughters  receive  their 
food,  clothing  and  dwelling,  just  as  the  widow  does;  for  such 
support  of  the  widow  and  her  daughters  the  father’s  estate  is 
sold,  even  without  public  auction,  liakhrusa ,  with  the  only  dif¬ 
ference  that  the  widow  is  supported  according  to  (her  and  her 
husband’s)  dignity  and  station,  whilst  the  daughters  obtain  only 
just  the  necessaries  of  life.  They  are  not  obligated  to  any  oath, 
whilst  the  widow  is  to  swear  that  sln^has  not  misappropriated 
anything  of  the  estate  not  hers. 

(12.)  That  support  etc.  of  the  widow  and  her  daughters,  and 
the  inheriting  by  her  sons  of  her  endowment  and  dower,  takes 
place  only  then  when  the  Kethuba  etc.  documents  are  produced. 
If  such  documents  do  not  exist,  it  is  assumed  that  the  mother 
had  resigned  them.  But  if  it  is  not  customary  to  write  the 
Kethuba  (relying  on  the  public  law  on  marital  rights),  then  it  is 
valid  (a  sort  of  tacit  right,  presumption). 

The  endowment  and  the  free-will  increase  are  treated  alike. 
Whilst  the  home-dower  is  rather  neglected,  lightly  and  differ¬ 
ently  treated,  because  it  is  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the  Orient 
for  women  to  bring  to  their  consort  any  dower.  We  must  not 
forget  that  Judaea  and  Babylonia  are  close  upon  Arabia,  where 
custom  established  and  Mohammed’s  laws  confirmed  that  the 
husband  gets  his  wife  best  from  the  slave-merchant !  Such  were 
then  the  peculiar  conditions  of  society. 

(XX., 1.)  It  is  a  rabbinical  ordinance  to  endow  one’s  daugh¬ 
ter  and  have  her  married ;  all  according  to  the  father’s  means. 
About  10  per  cent,  of  his  property  is  the  assumption.  (The 
reader  will  remember  that  only  sons  inherited,  not  daughters, 
when  sons  existed.  This  is  in  order  not  to  alienate  the  family 
acre  and  pass  it  unto  another  clan,  if  the  daughters  would  inher¬ 
it.  Their  marriage  portion  was  their  sole  inheritance.  Here,  too, 
is  Oriental  spirit  prevailing.  The  antique  agrarian  laws  dic¬ 
tated  that :  The  man  continued  the  family  and  the  name,  the 
woman  stepped  out  and  helped  building  another  family  and 


136 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


name ;  hence  no  inheritance,  besides  the  marriage  dower.  Ap¬ 
parently  in  hoary  times  man  bought  his  wife  and  got  no  dower. 
When  marital  candidates  became  rarer  the  fathers  had  to  sup¬ 
ply  a  dower  for  their  daughters,  just  as  now  in  the  Western 
world. ) 

(2.)  If  the  father  is  dead,  his  heirs  estimate  the  extent  of  his 
liberality,  and  have  her  endowed  and  married  according  to  that 
estimate. 

(XXI.,  1.)  The  profits  of  the  work  of  a  wife  or  whatever 
she  gets,  belong  to  her  husband.  Her  work  is  just  as  custom 
prescribes  in  each  country.  If  no  work  is  customary,  she  is 
still  held  to  spin  wool  (idleness  is  prohibited,  the  same  as  loaf¬ 
ing,  gossiping  or  coquetting.) 

(2.)  However  large  her  home-dower  may  have  been,  she 
must  not  idle  away  her  time,  because  idleness  induces  immor¬ 
ality. 

(3.)  For  that  same  reason  no  husband  shall  bid  his  wife  to 
do  nothing;  rather  shall  he  dismiss  her  and  pay  her  the  Ke- 
thuba.  Every  wife,  even  the  richest,  shall  assist  her  husband  at 
his  toilet,  at  table,  bed  and  drink,  in  all  domestic  activities,  and 
in  her  leisure  she  spins  wool ;  all  in  private,  not  in  presence  of, 
even,  relatives  ( i .  e.,  in  public  she  is  the  mistress,  domina;  in 
private,  the  wife.) 

(4.)  All  that  she  is  to  do  and  none  else  shall  do  it,  however 
many  servants  she  may  have  brought  him ;  such  are  the  special 
wifely  duties. 

(5.)  Poor  men’s  wives  have,  besides,  to  do  the  baking,  cook¬ 
ing,  washing  the  clothes,  suckling  the  children,  tend  to  the 
domestic  animals  and  grind  the  flour  etc.  If  she  brought  him 
property  or  slaves,  her  work  is  decreased  in  proportion. 

(XXII.,  1.)  The  husband  inherits  of  his  wife  before  every¬ 
one  else. 

(7.)  Of  all  the  property  of  a  woman  the  husband  enjoys  the 
yearly  produce,  as  long  as  she  lives,  and  when  she  dies,  he  in¬ 
herits  all.  If  she  sold  anything  of  her  private  property,  he  is 
anyhow  entitled  to  the  produce  (of  the  real  property)  as  long 
as  she  lives ;  and  when  she  dies  he  gets  the  property  back  of  the 


RABBINICAL  DIVORCE  LAWS. 


137 


buyers ;  he  is  to  return  to  them  the  purchase  price  she  had  re¬ 
ceived. 

(8.)  Outside  property  of  hers  (of  which  the  husband  never 
took  any  cognizance)  is  definitely  sold  and  valid. 

The  reader  will  hold  in  mind  that  all  these  intricate  laws  of 
husband,  wife,  wives’  sons,  daughters  and  several  sets  of  chil¬ 
dren  from  different  wives,  are  the  awkward  and  baneful  results 
of  the  old  social  and  domestic  curse  of  polygamy,  dominant  in 
the  Gentile  world,  hence  in  part  in  Israel,  too,  and  against 
which  environments  the  law  struggled  as  well  as  it  could. 

Rabbinical  Divorce  Laws. 

( Maimonides  Yad.  Divorce  Law.)  Following  up  other 
texts,  but  chiefly  that  of  V  M.,  24.1,  largely  discussed  above, 
the  Rabbis  enacted  that: 

(I.,  1.)  A  -wife  can  be  divorced  only  by  a  written  document, 
delivered  into  her  hands,  called  “Get.”  Scripture  requires 
there  these  ten  things :  It  must  be  done  with  the  husband’s  free 
will ;  by  a  written  act,  declaring  that  he  divorces  and  dismisses 
her;  that  she  is  definitely  repudiated  by  him;  the  Get  is  to  be 
written  expressly  for  that  purpose  and  for  those  persons,  lack¬ 
ing  nothing  else  but  delivery  to  her ;  it  must  be  delivered  to 
her ;  handed  before  witnesses ;  expressly  as  a  letter  of  divorce ; 
either  the  husband  or  his  proxy  should  deliver  it  to  her ;  other 
moments  of  the  repudiating  instrument,  as  the  time,  witnesses 
etc.,  are  further  rabbinical  requirements  (not  mentioned  in  the 
Scriptures,  but  supplemented  by  the  Rabbis). 

(2.)  The  husband  divorces  her  only  by  his  free  will;  the 
wife  is  divorced  with  or  without  her  consent.  (This  last  clause 
is  the  legal  Oriental  view,  but  the  rabbinical  morality  rejected 
it.) 

(II.)  In  delivering  to  her  the  document  he  is  to  say  to  her: 
“This  is  thy  letter  of  divorce.”  (All  this  is  to  be  performed 
publicly.) 

12.-15.)  It  must  be  in  presence  of  two  witnesses,  after  read¬ 
ing  it  in  their  presence.  Two  witnesses  must,  furthermore,  un¬ 
dersign  the  document. 


136 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


(24.)  Besides,  it  is  rabbinically  required  that  the  names  of 
the  witnesses  be  mentioned  in  the  Get ;  they  must  sign  their 
names  in  presence  of  each  other ;  the  correct  and  explicit  time 
and  place  must  be  mentioned  therein,  also,  and  the  customary 
era  of  the  country.  Some  count  after  the  Jewish  Era  (Crea¬ 
tion),  others  by  that  of  Alexander,  the  Macedonian  (Seleucidae). 
Many  more  details  are  prescribed  for  divorce. 

(II.,  20.)  Whenever  the  Court  of  Judges  deems  it  best  and 
most  reasonable  for  all  parties  concerned  that  a  man  should  di¬ 
vorce  his  wife  (in  order  to  avoid  some  greater  complications), 
then  the  Court  may  enforce  even  blows  and  compel  the  man  to 
say:  “I  will  (divorce  her),”  whereupon  the  Get  is  to  be  writ¬ 
ten  and  delivered,  and  is  valid ;  provided  that  it  is  just  and 
moral  and  that  by  Scriptural  ordinance  he  is  bound  to  divorce 
her. 

Many  hundreds  of  such  sections  of  law  have  been  enacted 
by  the  Rabbis  on  that  head ;  an  entire  treatise  of  the  Talmud, 
Gittin,  is  devoted  to  it.  All  possible  and  impossible  cases  are 
provided  for,  carefully  discussed  and  settled;  the  juridical  in¬ 
strument  proper,  the  Get,  letter  of  divorce,  is  minutely  dis¬ 
cussed,  settled  and  described ;  the  style,  or  formulae,  the  words, 
the  paper,  the  ink,  the  shape  and  length  of  the  letters,  all  with 
the  utmost  details  and  punctiliousness,  to  do  it  according  to 
law,  and  apparently  with  the  object  of  tarrying  and  give  the 
parties  time  to  reconsider !  And  that  external  anxiety  in  form 
and  shape  and  style,  proves  the  real  inner  anxiety  of  the  rab¬ 
binical  legalists  and  sincere  moralists.  It  shows  their  conscien¬ 
tiousness  and  their  scruples;  that  the  one-sided,  Oriental  prac¬ 
tice  of  divorce  is  wrong  and  faulty;  that  it  does  not  square  with 
the  Mosaic  morality  and  its  theory  of  marriage.  They  felt  that 
Biblical  morality  allows  no  repudiation,  without  grave  cause, 
that  the  Asiatic  and  barbarous  custom  of  polygamy  and  of 
one-sided  divorce  are  heathen  twins,  resting  upon  force  and  slav¬ 
ery,  not  upon  reason,  right  and  freedom ;  and  that  the  true  view 
of  the  Pentateuch  concerning  husband  and  wife  is :  “Therefore 
shall  man  leave  his  father  and  his  mother  and  cling  to  his  wife, 
and  they  form  one  person”  (Gen.,  2.24).  This  natural  and  Bib- 


THE  BAN  OF  R.  GERSHOM — THE  MARRIAGE  RING. 


139 


lical  moral  view,  the  Shamaite  School  recognized  as  the  only 
correct  one,  as  the  only  true  base  and  standpoint  of  a  healthy 
marital  legislation,  conducive  to  social  welfare.  Hence  that 
school  stated  that  only  infidelity  may  be  a  valid  cause  for  di¬ 
vorce ;  otherwise  the  conjugal  tie  is  eternally  binding  and  indis¬ 
soluble.  Whilst  the  practical  Hillelite  School  took  Genesis,  II., 
24,  only  as  an  ideal,  a  morale,  pium  desideratum ;  practically, 
they  followed  the  general.  Oriental  customs,  that  a  man  can  re¬ 
pudiate  his  wife  at  his  own  will  and  for  any  cause  he  pleases. 
For  long  the  Jewish  Courts  hesitated  between  these  two  views, 
hence  the  anxiety,  diversity  and  multiplicity  of  the  divorce  pro¬ 
visions,  so  as  to  give  parties  leisure  and  time  to  reflect  over  the 
baneful  results  of  separation,  and  see  whether  a  compromise 
and  peace  are  not  preferable. 

The  Ban  of  R.  Gershom — The  Marriage  Ring. 

Thus,  the  general,  Oriental  matrimonial  practice — in  contra¬ 
diction  with  the  literal  and  the  moral  sense  of  I  M.,  2.24,  and 
V  M.,  24.1  followed  in  Judaea  also — contained  several  grave  de¬ 
fects,  viz :  I.  Polygamy,  a  man  could  marry  several  wives,  to¬ 
gether  ;  the  man  married  the  woman,  she  did  not  marry  him ; 
whilst  in  the  historical  chapters  of  the  Patriarchs  we  find  monog¬ 
amy  to  be  the  rule  and  polygamy  as  an  anomaly,  ever  brought 
about  by  exceptional  causes.  II.  Divorce ;  divorce  without 
cause,  or  without  good  cause.  The  Bible  states  the  only  cause  to 
be  Ervath  dabar,  immorality.  The  Ilillelites  were  accommodat¬ 
ing,  and,  following  the  general  custom,  they  allowed  divorce,  even 
“for  burning  a  dish,  even  when  finding  a  prettier  woman.”1  III. 
The  man  could  repudiate  without  the  consent  of  the  woman ;  the 
least  justifiable  enactment,  the  most  cruel  blow  to  woman’s  posi¬ 
tion  and  dignity.  Happily,  the  logic  and  the  morality  of  the  Pen¬ 
tateuch  gradually  prevailed  over  barbarous  polygamy,  and  prac¬ 
tically  it  has  long  ago  gone  out  of  usage  in  Israel.  Marriage  and 
divorce  were  slowly  being  regulated  by  the  moral  sense  of  the 
Bible,  though  the  rabbinical  Oriental  concessions  still  lingered 

'So  the  Code  of  Hammurabi  mentions  divorce  as  a  matter  of  course,  the 
husband’s  privilege,  the  right  of  the  stronger. 


140 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


on ;  occasionally  polygamy  and  one-sided  divorce  were  yet  to  be 
met  with  among  the  Jews  of  the  Orient,  and  even  in  the  Occi¬ 
dent,  until  the  advent  of  R.  Gershom,  who  did  away  with  that. 

Eabbenu  Gershom,  son  of  Jehuda  (960-1028),  was  the  great 
Talmudical  authority  of  his  age,  an  age  not  much  distinguished 
for  high  culture,  rabbinical  or  scientific,  among  European  Jews. 
He  and  his  brother,  R.  Macher,  had  come  to  the  Rhine  provinces 
from  Southern  France,  and  imparted  there  the  stimulus  to 
higher  education.  He  settled  in  Mayance  and  established  there 
a  Talmudical  Academy,  whereto  many  students  flocked.  He 
was  termed  the  ‘flight  of  the  Diaspora.”  He  was  an  excellent 
Talmud-teacher,  wrote,  first,  popular  commentaries  thereon,  and 
was  soon  recognized  as  the  rabbinical  authority  there,  the  Gaon 
of  the  West.  It  is  this  R.  Gershom,  of  Mayance,  who  enacted 
several  important  improvements  in  behalf  of  the  Western  Jews, 
and  it  was  he  who  abolished  legal  polygamy.  He  furthermore 
declared  that  the  woman’s  consent  to  the  divorce  is  necessary ; 
those  transgressing  that  shall  lapse  into  the  ban  and  be  excom¬ 
municated.  And  though  he  enacted  this  on  his  own  authority, 
the  Western  Jews  accepted  his  decrees  as  if  coming  from  the 
Synedrion.  It  became  law.  The  moral  sense  of  the  Pentateuch 
had  conquered  and  stimulated  the  civilized  world,  Jew  and 
Christian.  The  deep  sense  of  I  M.,  2.24,  and  of  V  M.,  24.1, 
long  ago  correctly  interpreted  by  the  Shaminaites,  at  last  was 
grasped  and  accepted;  polygamy  and  forcible  repudiation  were 
branded  as  illegal  and  wrong  and  ousted,  though  cautiously, 
from  Israel’s  Code.1 

There  still  remained  one  link  and  vestige  of  that  old  chain  of 
slavery  and  polygamy,  in  the  marriage  ceremony  and  its  for¬ 
mula,  viz :  There  the  bridegroom  places  a  gold  ring  upon  the 
finger  of  the  bride,  with  the  words :  “Be  thou  consecrated  unto 
me  by  this  ring  conforming  to  the  customs  of  Moses  and  Israel.” 
That  had  once  its  literal  sense ;  it  meant  that  the  woman  was 
acquired  by  the  man,2  that  she  consecrated  herself  to  him  and 

>R.  Gershom’s  Laws.  Kol-bo,  116;  Responses  of  R.  Meir  Rothenberg. 

flvjpj  nt’N 


SUNDRY  LAWS. 


141 


owed  to  him  her  all ;  he  was  bound  to  her  just  as  much  as  he 
was  pleased ;  he  could  marry  other  wives,  besides  her ;  he  could 
put  her  aside  or  divorce  her ;  in  one  word,  the  marriage  contract 
was  one-sided,  not,  by  far,  the  Biblical  one  of  mutuality  and 
spontaneity.  It  was  left  to  our  present  time  to  stop  that  loophole 
of  polygamy,  and  ordain  that  marriage  is  reciprocally  and  equal¬ 
ly  binding.  The  bridal  pair  interchanges  rings,  each  saying  and 
accepting  the  dictum :  “By  this  ring  be  thou  consecrated  to  me 
as  my  spouse”  etc.  This  answers  fully  to  the  Mosaic  ideal ;  it 
took  over  3,000  years  to  make  the  ideal  real. 

V  M.,  24.  and  25. — Sundew  Laws;  Levieate  Marriage. 

Chapters  24  and  25  of  Deuteronomy  contain  many  more 
verses  bearing  upon  our  theme,  the  humanity  and  charity  of  the 
Pentateuch,  themes  which  we  have  discussed  already,  either  in 
this  treatise  or  in  the  preceding  one  (“Spirit  of  the  Biblical 
Legislation”).  We  shall  give  them  here  but  a  cursory  mention¬ 
ing:  (V  M.,  24.5)  :  “When  a  man  has  recently  married  a  wife, 
he  shall  not  go  forth  in  the  army ;  he  shall  be  exempted  .  .  . 
and  stay  at  his  home  for  a  year,  and  render  his  wife  happy.” — 
Ho  modern  lawgiver  ever  had  such  a  humane  consideration. — 
(24.6)  :  “Ho  one  shall  take  in  pawn  the  stones  of  the  mill,  for 
that  is  pawning  life.” — We  have  seen  here  in  rudiment  the  Ex¬ 
emption  Law  of  Mosaism. — (24.10)  :  “Lending  thy  neighbor 
anything,  thou  shalt  not  go  into  his  house  to  fetch  his  pledge ; 
but  thou  shalt  wait  outside,  and  the  man,  thy  debtor,  shall  fetch 
and  bring  out  to  thee  the  pledge.” — (24.11)  :  “And  if  he  be 
poor,  thou  shalt  return  it  to  him  at  sunset  for  the  night  .  .  . 
that  Ihvh  may  account  that  to  thee  for  righteousness,  and  bless 
thee  for  it.” — How  considerate  the  Lawgiver  is  in  the  first  verse 
for  the  feeling  of  the  poor,  and  how  provident  he  is  in  the  sec¬ 
ond  one  for  his  humble  comfort ! !  Where  do  we  find  such  a 
humane  remark  in  the  Roman  Twelve  Tables,  or  in  the  Laws 
of  Hammurabi,  hardly  even  in  a  modern  Code? — (24.14): 
“Thou  shalt  not  withhold  the  wages  of  the  poor,  be  he  thy 
brother  or  a  stranger  (non- Jew),  but  thou  shalt  pay  him,  daily, 
his  wages,  for  he  is  destitute  and  his  soul  is  waiting  for  that, 


142 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


lest  he  may  cry  to  God  on  that  account,  and  that  will  be  imputed 
lo  thee  as  a  sin.” — IIow  finely  is  here  religion  enlisted  in  the 
cause  of  justice! — (24.16)  :  “The  parents  shall  not  die  for  the 
children,  nor  the  children  for  the  parents.  Everyone  shall  die 
for  his  own  guilt.” — Babylonian,  Phoenician,  Roman,  even  Eu¬ 
ropean  Mediaeval  laws,  made  the  entire  family  responsible  for 
the  guilt  of  one  of  its  numbers. —  (24.17)  :  “Thou  shalt  not  bend 
the  right  of  the  stranger  (non-Jew)  and  the  orphan,  nor  take  in 
pledge  the  dress  of  the  widow.  Remember  thou  wast  a  (poor) 
slave  in  Egypt,  therefore  God  bids  thee  (be  sympathetic)  to  do 
this.” — Think  a  little :  In  this  twentieth  century  our  laws  and 
our  practice  discriminate  yet  between  native  and  foreigner,  co¬ 
religionist  and  not.  Mosaism  pleads  for  the  rights  of  the  native 
poor,  the  Gentile  poor,  the  orphan  and  the  widow,  in  one  line, 
in  one  and  the  same  breath !  And  not  alone  for  the  justice  due 
to  them,  but  also  for  charity,  to  be  extended  to  them  all  alike. 
The  Rabbis  recommend  the  same  justice  and  the  same  charity, 
as  due  to  everyone,  without  any  creed  discrimination.  So  we 
read  (24.19)  :  “Part  of  thy  wheat  crop,  thy  oil  crop  and  thy 
vine  crop  thou  shalt  leave  to  the  stranger,  the  orphan  and  the 
widow.  Remember  thou  hast  been  a  (poor)  slave  in  Egypt.  Do 
thou  this  (and  be  sympathetic).” — (V  M.,  25.1-3)  :  “When 
men  will  quarrel  and  be  summoned  before  the  judge  .  .  .  and  it 
will  be  deemed  fit  to  beat  the  guilty  party,  then  the  judge  shall 
cause  him  to  lie  down,  in  his  presence,  and  be  beaten,  according 
to  his  guilt,  to  the  number  (of)  forty  stripes,  not  to  exceed ; 
lest,  if  he  should  exceed  much  over  that — then  thy  brother  would 
be  lowered  in  thine  eyes.” — What  sympathy  with  a  poor  sinner, 
punished,  he  is  still  thv  brother! — (25.4)  :  “Thou  shalt  not  muz¬ 
zle  the  ox  when  he  thresheth  (thy  grain)” — So  plain,  yet  sub¬ 
lime;  sympathy  even  with  brutes. — (25.5)  :  “If  brothers  dwell 
together,  and  one  of  them  die  without  child,  then  the  widow  shall 
not  leave  the  house  and  go  to  a  stranger;  her  husband’s  brother 
shall  marry  and  take  her  as  his  wife.  And  the  first-born  child 
(born  of  that  marriage)  shall  succeed  to  the  name  of  the  dead 
brother,  that  his  name  shall  not  be  blotted  out  of  Israel.” — What 
grand  benevolence,  charity  and  wisdom  are  here  exhibited  to 


GLEANINGS  IN  BIBLICAL  BENEVOLENCE. 


143 


the  dead  brother,  his  poor  widow  and  his  posthumous,  adopted 
child !  His  wife  shall  not  be  estranged  to  his  and  her  home, 
and  his  name  shall  be  perpetuated  by  the  child;  his  farm  shall 
not  be  alienated,  but  stay  together  with  his  name,  his  wife  and 
his  heir.  So  many  considerations  are  centralized  in  one  focus ! 
What  a  noble,  sweet,  generous  sympathy,  not  sentimentality !  It 
is  an  effort  to  immortalize  the  dead  in  this  terrestrial  world,  to 
link  together  the  members  of  the  family,  the  soil,  the  past  and 
the  future,  the  individual  and  the  nation,  into  one  indissoluble 
tie  of  solidarity.  Still,  in  the  face  of  such  a  code  of  fellow-feel¬ 
ing  and  broad  humanitarian  kindliness,  should  their  would-be 
critics  reproach  it  with  lack  of  sympathy  X1 

Some  Gleanings  in  Biblical  Benevolence.  Sympathy 

WITH  THE  PoOE. 

(V  M.,  15.1)  :  “At  the  end  of  (every)  seven  years  thou  shalt 
hold  a  year  of  release viz :  “Let  every  creditor  release  his  hand 
from  the  loan  he  had  made  to  his  neighbor  and  not  press  (for 
payment)  his  debtor,  his  brother  (for  what  he  has  lent  him), 
for  it  is  a  release  instituted  by  God.  The  non- Jew  thou  canst 
press,  but  what  thou  hast  lent  to  thy  brother,  thou  shalt  release 
thy  hand  from ;  that  there  may  be  no  paupers  among  you  (no 
eternally  debt-ridden  class  of  people),  and  that  God  may  ever 
bless  thee  in  thy  land”  .  .  . 

We  have  previously2  treated  at  large  of  this  most  important 
and  far-reaching  socio-economieal  institution,  as  the  cure  of  the 
ever-recurring  “social  problem”  in  ancient,  in  modern  and  in 
present  times,  the  question  how  to  avoid  the  eternal  clash  be¬ 
tween  the  rich  and  the  poor.  We  have  seen  that  Communism 
aspires  at  the  Utopia  of  altogether  abolishing  property,  forget¬ 
ting  that  with  that  is  also  abolished  the  stimulant  to  work,  to  ef¬ 
fort,  and  then  society  would  starve.  Others,  as  Lycurgus,  the 
Hazarean  Ebionites,  or  J.  J.  Rousseau,  Fournier  etc.  have  tried 
to  limit  and  curtail  individual  needs,  and  thus  make  over-acqui¬ 
sition  and  fraud  useless ;  but  that  leads  rather  to  universal  pau- 

*See  my  “Bible  Legislation”  on  this,  page  179. 

2See  here  above  .  .  .  and  “  Bible  Legislation,”  page  83. 


114 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


perisin  than  well-being.  The  Pentateuch  proposes  another  rem¬ 
edy,  viz,  acquisition,  not  accaparation ;  the  use,  not  the  abuse, 
of  industry  and  economy.  It  legitimizes  ownership,  it  conse¬ 
crates  profits  and  effort,  it  promises  wealth  as  a  reward  for  good¬ 
ness,  but  it  ever  reminds  us  of  our  interest  in  the  welfare  of  our 
next,  of  our  social  solidarity.  Hence  our  institution :  Every 
seventh  year  the  poor  who  cannot  pay  his  debts  shall  be  freed  of 
his  obligations,  his  brother  creditor  shall  totally  annul  and  cancel 
them,  for  it  is  a  Release  Year,  proclaimed  by  divine  authority. 
For  six  years  every  citizen  works  and  acquires  for  himself;  in 
the  seventh  year  he  shall  cancel  all  his  poor  fellow-citizen’s  in¬ 
debtedness  towards  him,  and  this  is  ordained  for  the  express 
purpose  “that  there  shall  no  eternal  pauperism  arise  among  the 
people.”  In  15.7,  the  citizen  is  earnestly  exhorted:  Liberally  to 
lend  to  the  poor,  not  to  begrudge  him,  not  cunningly  reckon  out 
that  when  the  Release  Year  arrives  he  would  lose  his  hold  upon 
his  loan  or  goods ;  that  would  be  mean.  But  he  is  ever  to  count 
upon  the  honest  endeavor  of  the  debtor  to  pay,  when  he  is  able. 
And  if  he  is  unable,  the  seventh  year  shall  annul  and  cancel  the 
debt.  Else  pauperism,  insolvency  and  enslavement  of  the  poor 
to  the  rich  would  be  the  result,  and  social  decadence  ruin  the 
State.  Even  so  it  was  in  Rome,  Corinth,  Antiochia,  Athens  etc. 
Sparta  alone  postponed  it  for  a  few  centuries  by  keeping  up  an 
artificial  contempt  of  individual  hoarding. 

The  Bible  under  primitive,  patriotic,  social  conditions,  pro¬ 
poses  here  its  own  panacea,  a  heroic  remedy.  It  appeals  to  the 
hearty,  ethical  and  rational  sense  of  fellow-feeling,  to  the  true 
and  real  interests  which  rational  men  ever  should  have  in  their 
mutual  well-being.  True  to  its  theocratic  and  ethical  State- 
Church  and  people-conception,  viz,  a  society  for  the  promotion 
of  mutual  happiness  and  improvement,  and  standing  on  the  prin¬ 
ciples  of  virtue,  solidarity  and  duty — virtue,  duty  and  solidarity 
are  appealed  to  as  the  correctives  of  the  social  vices.  Ho  Uto¬ 
pias,  no  continual  self-sacrifice,  no  ascetism,  no  hypocritical  pov¬ 
erty  and  abstinence.  Ho !  people  shall  work  and  acquire  for 
themselves  and  their  families.  But  no  abuse,  no  cruel,  fiendish 
competition.  Live  and  let  live.  Every  seventh  year  and  every 


BIBLICAL  BENEVOLENCE. 


145 


seven  times  seven  years  hopeless  debts  shall  be  canceled,  aban¬ 
doned,  and  a  free,  debtless  society  re-established  and  maintained. 
That  this  has  not  been  tried  proves  nothing  against  its  feasi¬ 
bility.  Future  political  wisdom  may  try  it  yet. 

All  texts  on  our  theme  carefully  examined,  there  remains  not 
a  shadow  of  a  doubt  that  the  Pentateuch  intended  by  the  Release 
Year  a  total  relinquishment  and  definite  abandonment,  not  a 
mere  postponement,  of  debts.  Every  seventh  year  was  to  efface 
and  blot  out  all  indebtedness,  all  distinctions  between  creditor 
and  debtor,  and  thus  make  pauperism  impossible.  Therefore 
only  the  fellow-Israelite  could  enjoy  of  that  great  privilege.  Of 
course,  this  was  calculated  for  an  ideal,  primitive,  non-commer¬ 
cial,  wise  and  unselfish,  democratic  Commonwealth.  Hence, 
when,  after  the  Maccabean  rise,  Israel  became,  especially  its 
millions  out  of  Judaea,  largely  a  great  international,  commercial 
federation,  Ilillel,  at  the  head  of  the  Pharisees,  the  party  of 
concession,  improvement  and  accommodation  to  the  new  environ¬ 
ments,  had  no  scruples  to  disestablish  that  ideal  institution,  en¬ 
acted  under  quite  other,  yea,  opposite,  social  conditions.  For  his 
time  he  enacted  that  the  creditor  could  stay  the  annulling  effects 
of  the  letter  of  the  Law,  and  that  a  public  declaration  by  the 
Court  made  the  debt  valid  and  collectible  after  the  Release  Year 
had  passed.  This  was  the  famous  Prosbal,  postponement  and 
non-forfeiture  of  the  debt.  That  the  Sanhedrin  had  received  a 
hint  to  that  effect  from  the  Herodians  is  not  impossible. 

In  corroboration  of  this  far-reaching  and,  in  the  Pentateuch, 
very  often  alluded-to  institution,  we  read  (V  M.,  15.7),  close 
by :  “If  there  will  be  a  poor  man,  one  of  thy  brethren,  in  thy 
land,  harden  not  thy  heart  and  close  not  thy  hand  against  thy 
poor  brother.  I7o !  open  wide  thy  hand  and  lend  him  abun¬ 
dantly,  even  according  to  his  needs.  Take  care  that  a  mean 
consideration  creep  not  into  thy  wicked  sense,  viz :  The  seventh 
year,  ‘the  Release  Year,’  is  near  by,  and  thou  wilt  begrudge  thy 
distressed  brother,  and  not  assist  him,  and  he  will  call  to  Ihvh. 
Ho.  Do  give  him,  and  for  that  sake  thy  God  will  bless  thee. 
Indeed,  there  will  ever  be  some  poor  in  the  land,  therefore  thou 


146 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


slialt  ever  be  open-handed  to  thy  poor  brother,  thy  country¬ 
man.” 

Reader,  search  in  all  the  old  and  modern  legislative  litera¬ 
tures,  peruse  those  of  Hammurabi,  Lycurgus,  Solon,  the  XII 
Tables,  the  Codices  of  Justinian  and  Charlemagne,  down  to  the 
Code  Xapoleon,  and  see  if  you  find  a  passage  comparable  to  that 
quoted  ?  Behold  a  legislation  avowedly  standing  upon  the  solid 
rock,  the  impartial  principle  of  “Eye  for  eye  and  tooth  for 
tooth,”  that  teaches:  “The  poor  thou  shalt  not  favor  in  justice,” 
but  consider  and  protect  the  poor  in  equity,  in  his  social  help¬ 
lessness.  He  owes  you  payment,  if  he  can,  but  not  eternal  in¬ 
debtedness,  not  dependence  and  final  enslavement,  generation 
after  generation,  ending  in  wretched  pauperism,  in  the  social 
cancer,  our  Social  Problem !  Peruse  these  eloquent,  thrilling, 
deep-cutting  lines.  That  adamantine  Lawgiver  of  the  Lex  Tali- 
onis,  becomes  so  softened,  so  merciful,  appeals  to  your  heart  and 
your  brain,  not  at  all  incompatible  with  money-lending.  Be¬ 
hold,  he  spares  nothing,  he  strikes  hard  and  long  upon  the  thick 
crust  of  egoism:  “Have  pity  with  thy  countryman,  the  poor, 
thy  brother,  assist  him  in  his  distress,  reduce  him  not  to  pau¬ 
perism  !  What  a  sincere  sympathy  with  human  suffering !  What 
a  far-reaching,  deep  and  wise  insight  into  political  structures. 
Xineveh,  Persepolis,  Antiochia,  Babylon,  Rome  and  Athens, 
even  Sparta,  fell  because  tbo  rich  had  lost  all  heart  for  their 
poor  countrymen ! 

Justice  and  Pity. 

(V  M.,  16.19):  “Judges  and  magistrates  thou  shalt  appoint 
in  all  thy  (City)  gates,  and  they  shall  render  judgment  justly. 
Thou  shalt  not  bend  justice,  not  respect  persons  (not  discrimi¬ 
nate  between  parties,  so  as  to  spare  the  poor  or  to  connive  with 
the  strong),  and  not  take  a  bribe  .  .  .  Justice  only  thou  shalt 
insist  upon,  that  thou  mayest  live  and  abide  in  the  land  God 
is  giving  thee.” — The  very  same  Lawgiver  that  is  so  tender  and 
yielding  in  the  community  on  the  great,  altruistic  considerations 
of  social  well-being,  the  same  is  unbending  and  exacting  in  the 
Court  of  Justice.  Here  he  insists  upon  justice,  strict,  accurate, 


JUSTICE  AND  PITY. 


147 


sharp,  equal  justice.  No  two  weights  and  measures,  no  respect, 
nor  discrimination ;  to  everyone  his  due !  The  confounding  of 
justice  with  sympathy  is  in  part  at  the  bottom  of  our  social 
wrongs ;  each  is  often  applied  in  the  wrong  place ;  each,  with  a 
selfish  background  in  last  resort,  wronging  one  from  pity  for 
the  other. 

To  render  justice  is,  and  was,  perhaps  the  main  task  and 
duty  of  the  State.  So  in  Carthage  and  in  Palestine  the  King 
was  first  termed  Judge,  Shophet,  the  dispenser  of  justice  ( Misli - 
pat).  Now  it  is  well  known  how  this  chief  and  paramount 
function  was  poorly  executed  in  the  ancient  world,  and  even  to¬ 
day  in  semi-barbarous  countries.  Greece  was  notorious  for  her 
corrupt  justice.  Even  Aristides  and  Phocion  fell  victims  to  it, 
not  to  speak  of  Themistocles  or  Alcibiades.  Venal  orators  and 
demagogues  gave  phrases  in  place  of  fair  judgment.  The 
tragedy  of  Appius  Claudius,  Virginia  and  the  Decemvirs,  the 
originators  of  the  XII  Tables  of  Rome,  is  well  known.  The 
Stela  of  Hammurabi  is  a  monument  of  partial  and  corrupt  jus¬ 
tice  by  the  strong  over  the  weak.1  The  corruption  of  the  Roman 
Senatorial  judges  was  proverbial.  Hannibal,  Mithridates  and 
Jugurtha  made  fun  of  Roman  justice.2  But  even  Cataline, 
Caesar,  Tiberius  and  Nero  openly  despised  these  Patrician 
judges,  whom  Cicero  pompously  terms:  The  citadel  of  the 
world.3  But  the  Jerusalemite  Supreme  Court  never  was  accused 
of  being  open  to  sordid  bribery.  We  read  in  the  Talmud4,  that 
the  Sanhedrin  once  cited  King  Hyrkanos  to  appear  before  its 
court  in  a  suit  against  unscrupulous  Herod,  his  proud  slave-lieu¬ 
tenant,  later  his  son-in-law  and  last,  supplanter  and  murderer, 
accused  of  having  unlawfully  executed  a  Jewish  guerrilla-leader. 
The  Chief  of  the  Sanhedrin  ordered  Hyrkanos  to  stand  up  dur¬ 
ing  the  trial.  But  his  colleagues  declined,  silently,  to  concur  in 

■See  further  Moses  and  Hammurabi  paralleled. 

2See  Sallust,  “  War  of  Jugurtha,”  “Rome  the  venal,  awaiting  for  herself 
the  highest  bidder.”  Titi.  Livi.  liber  XXI.  Hannibal’s  first  harangue  in 
Italy,  contrasted  with  Scipio’s:  the  tiger  and  the  lion  quarrelling  over  the 
sheep. 

3Cicero  “Cataline  Orationes.” 

‘Sanhedrin. 


148 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


this  rigor.  Hyrkanos  took  advantage  and  had  Herod  escape 
from  the  Court  and  the  imminent  risk  of  a  public  condemnation. 
Then  the  Synhedrial  Chief  sarcastically  reproached  his  col¬ 
leagues  with  their  lack  of  foresight,  predicting  to  them  and  to 
the  King  the  future  usurpation  of  that  same  ambitious  Herod. 
Ho  Roman  Senate  ever  dared  to  contradict  an  emperor  ;  Judaea 
alone  well  remembered:  “Hever  to  bias  judgment.” 

A  Portion  to  the  Freedman. 

(V  M.,  15.12)  :  “If  thy  brother,  the  Ebrew,  be  sold  unto 
thee,  he  shall  serve  thee  for  six  years ;  in  the  seventh  thou  shalt 
let  him  go  free.  And  when  thou  sendest  him  free,  do  not  let 
him  go  away  empty-handed.  Thou  shalt  furnish  him  out  of  thy 
flocks,  and  of  thy  threshing  floor  and  thy  wine-press,  wherewith 
God  has  blessed  thee.  Remember,  thou  hast  been  a  bondman 
in  Egypt,  and  God  has  rescued  thee;  therefore,  I  bid  thee  this 
(liberality)  :  Let  it  not  be  hard  unto  thee  to  let  him  go  away 
free  (for  double  the  task  of  a  hired  laborer  has  he  worked  for 
thee  during  the  six  years1,  and  God  has  blessed  thee  in  all  thou 
didst.”  Here,  too,  we  find  the  deep  commiseration  of  the  Law 
with  the  victims  of  the  great  social  wrongs.  Here,  too,  it  pro¬ 
vides  against  slavery  and  pauperism.  The  fellow-Hebrew  could 
serve  but  six  years;  he  was  to  be  treated  humanely;  he  ever  was 
considered  a  brother  and  fellow-citizen ;  his  family  could  never 
be  enslaved  or  pawned ;  and  on  leaving  he  was  entitled  to  a  por¬ 
tion.  The  Hebrew  maid-servant  was  treated  with  even  greater 
consideration."  As  to  the  boring  of  the  ear,  in  case  the  Jewish 
slave  obstinately  desired  to  stay  with  his  master,  we  have 
discussed  it  above.  That  was  the  general  custom  in  the  Orient. 
The  Code  of  Hammurabi  mentions  it  as  such.  It  may  have 
meant  to  symbolize  the  slaves’  annexation  and  identification 
with  the  master’s  family.  Perhaps,  even  under  the  circum¬ 
stances,  it  may  have  been  considered  as  a  virtue  of  fidelity,  ad¬ 
herence  and  self-sacrifice.  So,  for  instance,  when  he  had  a  slave- 
wife  and  children  with  her,  or  any  other  show  of  special  attaeh- 

'This  is  the  real  sense  of  the  vei-se. 

5See  “Bible  Legislation”  and  here  above. 


THE  THREE  YEARLY  HOLIDAYS. 


149 


ment  to  tlie  patron.  The  Talmud  considers  it  rather  as  a  mark 
of  ingrained  baseness,  servility  and  moral  degradation.1  This 
difference  of  viewpoint  is  natural.  In  the  Babylonian  and  the 
Roman  world,  renunciation  of  one’s  own,  original  nationality 
and  affiliation  with  that  of  the  dominant  race  and  the  master 
was  favored  and  hence  considered  a  virtue;  in  the  Judaean 
world,  scattered  everywhere,  it  was  regarded  as  a  crime  and  a 
shame,  apostasy!  For  Rome  and  Babylon  legislated  as  conquer¬ 
ors  ever  do  for  the  conquered;  Judaea  enacted  by  sympathetic 
lawgivers  for  a  free  people,  dispersed,  still  ideally  united  by 
blood,  history  and  law.  Hence  the  sincerity  and  integrity  of 
the  latter,  and  the  double-facedness  of  the  former.  The  first  con¬ 
secrated  their  personal  interest ;  the  latter  did  what  is  right  at  all 
times  and  in  all  circumstances,  absolutely.  Hence,  boring  the 
ear  was  in  Judaea  a  mark  of  infamy;  with  the  Roman  conquer¬ 
ors  it  was  a  title  of  distinction. 

The  Three  Yearly  Holidays. 

V  M.,  16.1,  institutes  the  three  ancient  yearly,  Biblical  holi¬ 
days — the  Feast  of  Passover,  that  of  Weeks,  and  that  of  Booths 
These  were  the  original,  naturalistic,  national  and  agricultural 
feasts,  all  connected  with  the  yearly  seasons  of  spring,  summer 
and  autumn, ;  with  the  beginning  and  the  close  of  the  grain  and 
the  fruit  harvests.  They  were  observed  by  all  antique  nationali¬ 
ties  and  races.  The  Book  of  Leviticus  adds  two  further  solemni¬ 
ties,  originally  Jewish,  not  of  a  rejoicing  and  social  character, 
but  solely  religious  and  individual,  which  during  the  Second 
Commonwealth  and  in  all  the  centuries  since  that  time  have 
become  the  center  and  climax  of  Israel’s  worship — the  Hew- 
Year  and  the  Atonement-Day."  Some  analogy  with  these  Peniten¬ 
tial  Days  we  may  meet  also  in  the  ancient  world,  but  there  bear- 

'See  Maimonides.  Yad.  Treatise.  Kings.  Hilkh.  Melakim. 

’See  here  above  and  in  my  “Bible  Holidays.”  Babylon  had  a  yearly, 
most  solemn  New-Year’s  Day,  combining  the  character  of  both  these  sol¬ 
emn  days.  The  Christian  churches  have  no  equivalent  to  these  two  days. 
Pity !  They  greatly  contribute  to  sober  out  the  believer,  yes.  any  thinking 
person,  and,  well-utilized,  bring  moral  improvement,  a  healthier  tone,  into 
society. 


150 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


ing  the  stamp  of  rank  myths  and  polytheism;  whilst  in  Judaea 
they  breathed  pure  monotheism  and  edification.  The  leading 
feature  of  these  first-named  three  naturalistic  festivals  are  hu¬ 
mane  sociability,  fraternizing  nationality,  noble  solidarity  and 
sweet  charity.  The  adults  of  the  Jewish  nation  were  to  appear 
in  the  national  capital,  at  its  sacred  capitol,  the  Temple,  and 
there  worship,  eat  and  drink  and  be  happy  together :  “Thou  shalt 
rejoice  before  the  Eternal,  thy  God,  thou,  thy  son  and  thy 
daughter,  thy  male  and  female  servants,  the  Levite  of  thy  pre¬ 
cincts,  the  stranger,  the  orphan  and  the  widow  residing  near 
you.”  This  means  our  modern  humanity.  Here  grew  up  and 
was  cemented  the  Hebrew  nationality,  the  one  confederated  peo¬ 
ple  out  of  the  Twelve  Tribes,  the  pattern  of  the  American 
United  States.  The  creed,  the  country,  the  fraternal,  tribal  and 
racial  unity  and,  chief  of  all,  the  Hebraic  solidarity  and  charity, 
grew  up  on  this  soil. 

Cities  of  Refuge. 

(V  M.,  19.3)  :  “Three  cities  thou  shalt  set  apart  in  thy 
land  .  .  .  And  these  shall  serve  as  an  asylum  for  anyone  slay¬ 
ing  a  man,  viz:  Whosoever  will  smite  his  next  unintentionally 
.  .  .  not  having  been  previously  his  enemy  ...  he  shall  flee 
unto  (and  find  refuge  in)  one  of  these  cities  and  shall  live  there. 
Lest  the  (nearest  relative)  blood-avenger,  in  his  anger,  would 
run  after  the  (innocent)  manslaver,  reach  and  kill  him,  though 
he  deserves  not  death  .  .  .  And  when  God  will  extend  thy 
boundaries  .  .  .  thou  shalt  add  three  further  cities  to  those 
three  .  .  .  that  no  innocent  blood  may  be  spilt  in  thy  land”  .  .  . 
“But  if  the  man-slayer  actually  was  an  enemy  of  the  killed  one, 
when  he  waylaid  him,  rose  upon  and  smote  him  who  died,  and 
he  thereupon  escape  into  one  of  these  cities,  then  the  City  Elders 
shall  send  and  take  him  away  from  thence,  and  hand  him  over 
to  the  blood-avenger,  that  he  may  die ;  have  no  pity  on  him,  but 
clear  away  innocent  blood  from  Israel,  that  it  may  be  well  with 
thee.”  Here  is  apparently  a  hoary,  primitive  provision,  but  full 
of  excellent  sense  and  benevolence  in  a  scattered  society  where 
self-help  is  paramount. 

Fluegel’s  “Humanity,  Benevolence  and  Charity  of  the  Pentateuch.” 


CITIES  OF  REFUGE. 


151 


At  all  times  and  in  most  cases  of  apparent  murder,  it  will  not 
always  be  perfectly  clear,  whether  the  murder  was  premeditated 
and  committed  willfully  and  intentionally,  or  not.  The  first 
and  greatest  duty  in  primitive  society,  of  the  nearest  kinsman 
and  heir  of  a  man,  was  to  avenge  his  relative  upon  his  treacher¬ 
ous  slayer,  even  upon  his  entire  tribe.  This  family  vendetta  ap¬ 
pears  to  have  been  among  the  most  venerable,  uncontested  and 
sacred  duties  of  a  blood-relation,  well  established  among  nearly 
all  ancient  tribes.  Now,  as  in  most  of  cases,  the  nice  distinction 
between  a  wilful  murderer,  a  negligent  blunderer  and  an  inno¬ 
cent,  accidental  manslayer  is  not  always  clear,  charitable  insti¬ 
tutions  and  sacred  places  have  been  consecrated  from  times  im¬ 
memorial  for  unintentional  murderers,  to  screen  such,  as  all 
persecuted  innocence,  and  secure  peace  and  protection  to  all  the 
weak  and  the  vanquished.  Soon  the  original  object  was  lost  of 
sight,  and  it  was  popularly  assumed  that  the  sacred  place  itself, 
the  altar,  the  sanctuary  with  its  grove  and  precincts,  atone  for 
and  purify  even  crime,  even  actual  murder  etc.  So  criminals, 
exposed  to  the  vengeance  of  the  blood-avenger  or  of  the  state, 
took  refuge  in  such  places  of  asylum.  All  the  leading  ancient 
temples  etc.  had  the  privilege  of  such  immunity.  The  criminals 
of  every  kind  flocked  to  and  haunted  such  places,  whilst  the  pure 
and  the  innocent  felt  unsafe  in  these  haunts.  From  Pagan 
places  and  altars  in  antique  times,  it  passed  to  modem  temples, 
churches,  mosques,  pagodas  and  marts.  Such  sacred  asylums 
were  yet  the  leading  churches  and  mosques  during  the  Middle 
Ages.  They  were  infinitely  more  frequent  in  antiquity.  To 
such  environments,  precarious  justice  and  doubtful  places  of 
refuge  our  text  alludes.  Here  the  Lawgiver  copes  with  the 
reigning  prejudices,  abuses  and  needs,  the  defective  means  of 
civil  coercion  and  good  government.  The  notion  and  office  of 
the  “blood-avenger”  he  allows  to  stand.  But  he  tries  to  discrim¬ 
inate  between  the  intentional  and  the  non-intentional  criminal 
deed ;  to  protect  the  innocent  and  unconscious  manslayer,  and  to 
puish  the  wilful  and  astute  waylaying  murderer.  He  ordains 
such  places  of  refuge  to  be  publicly  set  apart  and  good  roads 
constructed  to  reach  them ;  but  expressly  declares  that  not  the 


152 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


place,  the  altar1  or  the  sanctuary  protect,  but  solely  the  innocence 
of  the  suspected  runaway  man.  If  he  be  the  enemy  of  the  killed 
man,  if  he  was  waylaying  him  and  smiting  him,  that  conveys  the 
strong  presumption  that  he  had  wilfully  and  intentionally  killed 
him,  and  though  there  be  no  witnesses,  he  shall  be  delivered  to 
the  blood-avenger  and  die  by  his  hand.  Here  we  find  great  wis¬ 
dom  and  humanity  displayed  to  do  justice  to  all  parties  con¬ 
cerned,  considering  the  primitive  times  and  the  environments  of 
course,  all  that  is  old  and  defunct.  Rabbinical  jurisprudence  alto¬ 
gether  abolished  the  right  of  the  hoary  “blood-avenger.”  Only 
the  courts  put  a  man  to  death,  upon  two  witnesses  testifying  to 
clear  facts  etc.  Still,  such  asylums  long  continued  to  exist,  not 
to  screen  against  unreasoning  vendetta  or  bold  criminals  and 
malefactors,  but  as  an  adequate  punishment  for  unintentional 
manslayers.  Whosoever  had  the  misfortune  of  causing  the  death 
of  a  neighbor,  even  unwittingly,  was  to  go  into  exile,  since  some 
stain  or  guilt  ever  remain  attached  to  his  name  and  person. 
Here  is  justice  and  benevolence,  both,  at  the  bottom  of  the  insti¬ 
tution,  but  still  standing  upon  the  eternal  rock  of  equality: 
“Life  for  life,  eye  for  eye,  foot  for  foot.”  (Id.,  19,  21.)  A  head 
of  adamant  with  a  heart  of  sweet  fragrance  of  benevolence  had 
this,  our  Great  Moses ! 

Laws  of  War. 

(V  M.,  20.1):  “When  thou  goest  forth  to  war  against  thy 
enemy  and  seest  (a  great  multitude  of)  horses,  chariot  and  foot, 
in  larger  numbers  than  thou  art,  he  not  afraid,  God  is  with  thee 
.  .  .  Then  the  priest  shall  step  up  and  address  the  people  thus : 
Hear,  O  Israel,  you  are  ready  for  battle,  he  not  dismayed,  fear 
not  and  he  not  anxious,  God  goes  with  you  to  assist  you.  Then 
the  leaders  shall  harangue  the  people  thus:  Whosoever  has  built 
a  house  and  not  inaugurated  it,  let  him  go  home  and  occupy  his 
house.  Whosoever  has  planted  a  vineyard  and  not  gathered  its 
fruit,  may  return  home  and  enjoy  it.  And  whosoever  is  be- 

'II  M.  21.14  .moS  unpn  'ri3TD  ayo  Even  the  Priest  at  the  altar! 
Still  the  Rabbis  mitigated  the  sense  :  Dyo  not  Syo  and  half  way  saved 
the  privilege  of  asylums. 


LAWS  OF  WAR. 


153 


frothed  to  a  woman  and  has  not  wedded  her,  go  home  and  wed, 
that  he  may  not  die  in  battle  and  another  do  it  in  his  stead.  And 
whosover  is  afraid  and  discouraged,  shall  return  home  and  not 
discourage  his  brethren.”  These  are  weighty  verses  for  our  con¬ 
sideration. 

Here,  again,  we  find  the  salient,  uncommon  and  benevolent 
good  sense  of  the  Lawgiver,  uniting  sympathy  with  stern  neces¬ 
sity,  the  possible  good  with  the  unavoidable  hard  facts  of  human 
affairs.  Men  will  differ  in  opinion,  in  interests,  in  predilections, 
finally,  and  as,  vis  ultima  ratio,  will  come  to  blows,  appeal  to 
arms  and  decide  by  force.  What,  then,  may  be  done  to  mitigate 
such  awful  conditions  ?  The  Law  can  only,  as  much  as  possible, 
circumscribe  and  limit  the  extent  of  the  evil :  “If  thou  goest  to 
war  against  thy  enemy”  .  .  .  Reflect  well ;  do  you  make  war 
upon  your  enemy- — indeed,  your  enemy  ?  Can  he  not  yet  be 
your  friend?  Do  you  not  attack  him,  perhaps,  unjustly?  Could 
not  your  differences  be  adjusted?  Is  not  the  right  halfway  be¬ 
tween  both  of  you  ?  Could  you  not  adjust  it  by  fair  compromise 
and  arbitration  ?  But  you  claim,  you  feel  it,  clear  and  plain, 
that  the  whole  right  is  on  your  side  and  the  whole  wrong  on 
his,  and  you  appeal,  in  last  resort,  to  the  God  of  Arms.  Then  be 
strong  in  your  conscience !  Be  sure  the  God  of  Arms,  reason 
and  justice  is  with  you  and  will  help  you,  even  against  numbers 
and  the  larger  artillery !  Still,  you  fear  and  tremble  ?  Then 
here  is  hypocrisy  and  boastfulness,  and  you  had  better  not  fight. 
If  your  moral  conscience  be  strong  and  sure  that  you  are  right, 
then  you  have  the  best  chances  to  possess  the  greater  might.  The 
just  party  having  also  courage,  will  ever  inspire  respect  and 
soon  even  terror  to  a  ruffian  enemy  having  but  the  fist.  This 
psychology  will  ever  be  proven  and  corroborated  by  facts  and 
history,  even  at  the  moment  these  lines  are  written.1  Compare 
and  collate  history  and  psychology  with  our  text,  and  you  will 
find  its  suggestions  all  to  the  point,  an  excellent  code  of  war  and 
of  international  law,  even  today.  Even  that  genius  of  war, 
Bonaparte,  at  last  recognized  the  might  of  right  over  artillery. 


'The  Russo-Japanese  War,  1904,  May. 


154 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


Now,  with  all  just  national  causes  for  war,  it  is  still  possible 
that  single  parties  may  have  reason  to  deprecate  and  abhor  war. 
Such  individuals  will  be  faint-hearted,  and  to  compel  them  to 
what  is  repugnant  to  their  innermost  nature,  is  detrimental  to 
their  courageous  comrades  and  the  warring  people.  Their  mis¬ 
givings  may  well  be  contagious  and  affect  the  entire  army. 
Hence  comes  the  Lawgiver’s  prudence  and  his  magnanimity  not 
to  insist  upon  such  exceptional  individuals  to  fight  when  they 
show  fair  cause  to  stay  home  and  not  to  expose  themselves  use¬ 
lessly  to  the  chances  of  death.  A  man  entirely  engrossed  by 
home,  wife  and  estate  can  do  little  to  gain  victory  and  much  to 
lose  it.  Let  him,  then,  go  home!  But  President  Lincoln,  on 
such  an  occasion,  remarked :  “Then  all  my  soldiers  will  find  ex¬ 
cuse,  go  home  and  none  be  left  to  fight.”  Well,  if  a  commander 
is  aware  of  such  conditions,  then  he  had  better  disband  and  go 
to  arbitration  or  to  submit ;  unwilling  soldiers  ever  count  for  the 
enemy.  Just  the  recent  successes  of  small  Japan  over  the  Rus¬ 
sian  colossus,  can  be  best  accounted  for  on  such  moral  grounds. 
By  the  same  reason  will  be  explained  the  long  victorious  march 
of  the  French  revolutionary  armies,  as  well  as  the  final  over¬ 
throw  of  Napoleon  I. 

(V  M.,  20.10).  The  war-law  continues:  “If  thou  approach- 
est  a  city  to  fight  her,  thou  shaft  first  offer  her  peace.  If  she  ac¬ 
cepts  peace  and  surrenders,  then  her  people  shall  serve  thee  and 
be  tributary  to  thee.  But  if  she  make  war  and  God  delivers  her 
into  thy  hand,  then  her  male  population  may  be  destroyed  (as 
irreconcilable  foes),  but  the  women  and  children  .  .  .  shall 
be  spared,  they  and  all  her  wealth  are  thy  booty  of  war.”  Com¬ 
paring  these  verses  with  the  war-rules  in  ancient  times,  and  even 
in  Mediaeval  ages,  we  find  them  humane  and  thoughtful,  calcu¬ 
lated  to  appease  anger,  conciliate  men,  make  them  submit  to  ne¬ 
cessity  and  gradually  bring  about  good-will,  a  better  understand¬ 
ing,  peace  and  amalgamation  of  the  contending  races  and  nation¬ 
alities.  It  is  a  way  to  fuse  gradually  classes  and  tribes  under 
the  preponderance  of  the  most  capable  ones.  Of  course  that 
smacks  of  the  Bismarckian  cement,  the  “blood  and  iron  policy.” 


MYSTERIOUS  MURDER. 


155 


Blit  in  primitive  times  it  was  advisable,  feasible.  That  the  Law¬ 
giver  made  exception  with  the  native  seven  tribes  of  Canaan, 
declaring:  “Not  to  let  live  any  soul  of  them,”  he  motives  that 
rigor  by :  “That  they  shall  not  inure  thee  to  imitate  their  abomi¬ 
nations,  done  for  the  sake  of  their  gods,  and  thus  sin  against 
Ihvh”  .  .  .  We  are  too  far  from  those  times  to  judge.  Appar¬ 
ently  the  Lawgiver  deprecated  their  amalgamation.  The  abun¬ 
dant  examples  of  revolting  licentiousness,  coarse  idolatry,  cruel¬ 
ty,  sacrificing  of  children,  unnatural  vices  and  gross  unchastity 
(Midyan  and  Moab),  the  cruel  priestcraft  and  ruse,  necro¬ 
mancy,  dangerous  superstitions,  treachery  and  faithlessness 
(Tyre,  Carthage,  Pygmalion1),  so  often  and  bitterly  alluded  to 
in  the  Bible,  prove  that  the  rigors  of  the  Lawgiver  were  well 
founded.  His  warnings  were  not  heeded ;  the  Israelites  did 
amalgamate  with  the  Canaanites,  and  hence  came  the  national 
troubles,  idolatry,  secession,  entangling  alliances  and  destruc¬ 
tion  by  Sargon,  Salmanezer  and  Nebuchadnezzar. 

Mysterious  Murder. 

(V  M.,  21.1)  :  “When  a  slain  person  be  found  in  the  field, 
and  it  is  not  known  who  slew  it,  then  the  Elders  and  judges  shall 
go  forth  and  measure  the  distances  to  the  cities  around  the  corpse 
found.  Whereupon  the  Elders  from  the  City  nearest  to  it  shall 
take  a  heifer  as  yet  untoiled  with  and  unyoked,  and  bring  her 
down  to  the  running  stream  (close  by),  and  break  down  the  neck 
of  the  heifer  over  the  stream,  and  the  priests  and  all  the  Elders 
of  that  nearest  city  shall  wash  their  hands  over  the  heifer  .  .  . 
and  shall  loudly  declare :  Our  hands  did  not  shed  this  blood,  nor 
have  our  eyes  seen  who  did  it.  Grant  pardon,  0  Ihvh,  to  thy 
people,  redeemed  by  thee,  and  do  not  lay  innocent  blood  at  the 
charge  of  Israel”  .  .  .  According  to  tradition  the  heifer  was 
buried.  The  murderer,  if  later  discovered,  suffered  death.  The 
entire  ceremony  was  deemed  a  kind  of  expiatory  sacrifice,  an 
atonement,  for  the  crime  against  God  and  the  human  victim,  and 
a  solemn  manifestation  of  grief  at  the  loss  of  human  life.  The 

'See  Virgil’s  Aeneas  and  Dido ;  her  fierce  passions  and  desperation ;  or 
Cleopatra’s  (of  Egypt)  amours,  intrigues  and  tragic  end. 


156 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


symbolical  ceremony  meant  strikingly  to  declare  abhorrence  of 
murder  ;  it  called  public  attention  to  the  murderer,  and  solemnly 
averred  the  innocence  of  the  Elders  of  the  foul  crime  perpe¬ 
trated.  It  further  testifies  to  the  primitiveness  of  the  Law,  by 
its  very  naivity  and  antique  forms.  The  times  of  the  astute  Sel- 
eucidse,  Ptolomeans  and  the  Roman  emperors  are  too  worldly  for 
such  naive  appeals  to  the  Deity.  But  even  the  epoch  of  the  ear¬ 
lier  Assyrian  and  Babylonian  world-conquerors  clashes  with 
such  pious  invocations  and  supernatural  attestations.  At  the 
same  time  it  shows  great  solicitude  for  justice  and  for  human 
life,  fear  and  reverence  of  God,  the  horror  of  murder  and  vio¬ 
lence,  and  the  tender  sympathy  with  the  victim  thereof,  invoking 
Divine  justice  upon  the  perpetrator  as  yet  undiscovered.  Its 
purity,  its  faith  and  its  symbolism,  its  means  and  its  scope,  the 
entire  touching  ceremony  amidst  such  a  concourse  of  the  people, 
all  proves,  besides  its  very  early  date,  the  anxious  benevolence, 
coupled  with  the  love  of  justice  of  the  Deuteronomist.1 

Other  Sympathetic  Verses. 

To  the  same  high  sense  for  universal  justice,  solidarity  and 
mutual  services  among  fellow-citizens  point  the  following  verse : 
(V  M.,  22.)  :  “When  thou  seest  the  ox  or  the  sheep  of  thy 
brother  going  astray,  do  not  look  away,  but  bring  them  back  to 
thy  brother.  And  if  he  be  not  near  by,  hence  unknown  to  thee, 
thou  shalt  take  it  into  thy  house,  and  when  he  inquires  for  it, 
thou  shalt  return  it  to  him.  .  .  .  Nor  canst  thou  see  thy  broth¬ 
er’s  ass  or  ox  falling  on  the  road  and  not  care  about  them.  No; 
thou  shalt  indeed  help  him  to  raise  them  (from  the  ground).” 
Here  is  inculcated  good-will  towards  man  and  beast,  commented 
upon  elsewhere.  Such  laws,  too,  point  to  a  very  early  time  of 
composition,  Israel  being  still  generally  agricultural. 

(V  M.,  22.5)  :  “A  woman  shall  not  dress  as  a  man,  nor  a  man 
as  a  woman.  An  abomination  to  God  is  he  who  does  that.” 

'See  Maimonid.  Yad.  H.  Rozeah,  VI,  IX  and  X.  Such  passages  are 
among  those  many  more  which  induce  Professor  A.  H.  Sayce  to  give  to  the 
Fifth  Book  of  Moses  a  by  far  older  age  than  that  of  Jeremiah,  (in  a  recent 
letter  to  me). 


OTHER  SYMPATHETIC  VERSES. 


157 


Among  the  Phoenicians,  Canaanit.es  and  Babylonians  the  licen¬ 
tious  Astarta  cnlt  was  extensively  practiced.  Temples  and 
priests  administered  to  it.  Unchastity  and  libertinage  were 
erected  into  holy,  divine  service.  The  despicable  human  tools 
thereof  were  declared  as  “qadesli”  (holy)  and  “qadesha,”  males 
and  females  consecrated  to  the  Venus  service.  Such  men  were 
dressed  as  women  and  such  women  dressed  as  men.  To  these  the 
text  applies:  “Both  are  abominations  to  the  Eternal.”  So,  V 
M.,  23 :  “There  shall  be  no  qadesha  nor  qadesh  among  the  chil¬ 
dren  of  Israel,  ‘nor  shall  a  harlot’s  hire  be  consecrated  to  the 
Temple’  ” — all  these  were  Canaanite  customs.  On  the  extensive 
and  thorough  Mosaic  legislation  against  lewdness  and  in  behalf 
of  chastity  of  men  and  women,  of  marriage  and  purity,  we  have 
treated  at  large  in  our  “Mosaic  Diet  and  Hygiene.”  In  a  hun¬ 
dred  places  the  Pentateuch  battles  against  the  Canaanite  foul 
concessions  to  the  weakness  of  the  sexual  propensities,  and  this 
explains  its  rigid  proscription  of  those  races,  natives  of  Pales¬ 
tine  ;  it  was  simply  a  quarantine  measure,  to  preserve  the  bodily 
and  mental  health  of  the  young  Hebraic  nationality,  then  recent¬ 
ly  having  occupied  those  regions. 

“To  make  a  balustrade  or  inclosure  to  the  roof”  (V  M.,  22.8), 
is  likewise  a  healthy  humanitarian  public  police  measure,  to  pre¬ 
vent  accidents,  the  Oriental  often  using  his  roof  for  fresh  air. — 
Hot  to  mix  different  kinds  of  grains  in  sowing  (Id.,  22.9),  is 
an  agricultural  preventive  police  measure. — Hot  to  till  the 
ground  with  ox  and  ass  together  (Id.,  22.10),  has  a  double 
ground,  economical  and  humanitarian,  to  prevent  cruelty  to  ani¬ 
mals  and  unnatural  mixing  of  brutes. — Hot  to  dress  in  wool 
and  linen  together,  that  probably  aimed  against  the  imitation  of 
heathen  priestly  practices  of  that  kind  (Id.,  22.11).  Instead  of 
that  the  Lawgiver  recommends  “fringes”  at  the  four  ends  of  the 
garment,  the  Simla  or  shaAvl.  (See  Religious  Rites  and  views, 
Diet  and  Hygiene,  on  that  theme.)  Tradition  treats  largely  of 
three  sorts  of  such  forbidden  mixtures  ( helaim ).  (Ill  M.,  19. 
19),  viz:  Hot  to  pair  and  mix  up  diverse  kinds  of  brumes  in 
breeding ;  of  grain  in  sowing,  and  of  materials  in  man’s  clothes, 
as  wool  and  linen.  The  Mishna  Kelaim,  26,  forbids  the  pair- 


158 


HUMANITY.  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


ing  and  laboring  together  of  diverse  brutes.  (Sbulkan  Aruch 
Ioreh  Deah,  297.)  Misbna  Kelaim,  I.,  1,  treats  of  mixtures  in 
seeds.  Ioreh  Deah,  mixtures  of  trees,  vine  and  seed.  Mixtures 
in  dress-materials  (Shaatnez)  is  treated  in  M.  Kelaim,  9,  and 
Ioreh  Deah,  298  etc.  The  etymology  of  Shaatnez  is  uncertain ; 
it  appears  to  be  synonymous  with  Kelaim ,  improper  mixtures. 
Sacred  Writ  aims  at  preserving  pure  nature,  and  deprecates  any 
adulteration  and  bastard  products  by  unnatural  processes  in 
vogue  among  the  corrupt  Canaanites  (also  elsewhere,  now)  as- 
pecially  loathed  by  the  Mosaic  Lawgiver. 

We  discussed  the  following  verses  previously,  and  are  here 
brief:  (V  M.,  24.5)  :  A  newly  married  man  is  exempt  from  go¬ 
ing  to  war,  exempt  from  all  public  obligations ;  he  shall  stay  at 
home  for  the  first  year  and  be  happy  with  his  new  wife.  This  is 
openly  a  cumulative  recommendation  of  fitness,  benevolence  and 
census. — (Id.,  24.  6)  :  Man  shall  not  take  to  pledge  the  mill¬ 
stones  (of  the  debtor),  for  that  would  be  pawning  life.  “Thou 
shalt  not  take  in  pledge  the  raiment  of  a  widow  (Id.,  17),  even 
a  rich  one,”  say  the  Rabbis.  All  these  are  dictates  of  wisdom 
united  to  charity.  The  shawl,  Salma  or  Simla,  of  a  poor  man 
was  to  be  returned  to  him  every  evening  (IT  M.,  22.25).  That 
is  the  exemption  law  of  Mosaism,  enlarged  upon  in  the  Talmud. 
These  additional  remarks  are  to  complete  the  previous  exegesis 
of  these  verses. 

Pledge  of  the  Poor. 

Here  is  another  sweet  law  of  exemption  in  favor  of  the  poor 
debtor,  corroborating  the  above-mentioned  recommendations  of 
sparing  distressed  debtors  and  of  mercy  to  take  the  place  of  jus¬ 
tice:  (V  M.,  24.10)  :  “When  thou  lendest  aught  to  thy  brother, 
do  not  enter  his  house  to  take  his  pledge,  but  stay  outside,  and 
he,  thy  debtor,  shall  bring  out  to  thee  his  pledge.  And  if  he  be 
poor,  do  not  pass  the  night  with  his  pledge,  but,  indeed,  return  it 
to  him  at  sunset,  that  he  may  sleep  with  its  Simla  (shawl)  and 
bless  thee,  and  this  will  be  accounted  to  thee  as  a  benevolent  act 
before  thy  God.”  This  is  one  of  those  fine  passages  of  noble  hu¬ 
manity  and  philanthropy  which  prove  the  true  divinity  of  the 


THE  WORKINGMAN’S  HIRE. 


159 


Bible,  its  inspiration  from  the  highest  Source  of  goodness  and 
wisdom,  and  which  has  made  it  the  Book  of  Mankind,  of  all 
races  and  climes.  It  is  not  a  collection  of  scattered  treatises 
hailing  from  diverse  places,  centuries  and  hands,  as  deemed  by 
some  “Higher  Critics”  and  gratuitously  assented  to  by  the  igno¬ 
rant,  marvel-loving  crowd  of  imitators. 

The  Workingman’s  Hire. 

(V  M.,  24.14)  :  “Thou  shalt  not  unjustly  withhold  the  wages 
of  the  poor,  be  it  of  thy  brother  or  of  the  stranger  in  thy  land. 
On  the  very  same  day  give  him  his  wages,  for  he  is  poor  and 
looks  up  to  it.  Let  him  not  cry  to  God,  and  it  will  be  accounted 
to  thee  a  sin.” — (V  M.,  25.18)  :  “Thou  shalt  not  bend  in  judg¬ 
ment  the  right  of  the  stranger  and  of  the  orphan.  Remember, 
thou  hast  been  a  slave  in  Egypt  and  God  has  rescued  thee.” — 
(Id.,  24.19)  :  “When  thou  cuttest  down  the  harvest  of  thy  field 
and  forgettest  a  sheaf,  do  not  go  back  and  fetch  it,  but  leave  it 
to  the  (poor)  stranger,  the  orphan  and  the  widow;  the  same  do 
when  gathering  in  the  produce  of  thy  olive  trees  and  thy  vine¬ 
yard  .  .  .  that  God' may  bless  thee  in  all  thy  handiwork.” 

(V  M.,  25.2)  :  “When  the  judge  will  find  (corporal)  punish¬ 
ment  due  to  the  wicked  party,  according  to  his  guilt  he  shall 
have  him  chastised  (but)  in  his  own  presence,  and  not  over  forty 
stripes,  that  thy  brother  shall  not  be  (lowered)  despised  in  thine 
eyes.”  The  Codes  of  Hammurabi,  that  of  the  XII  Tables,  of 
Justinian,  and  even  modern  Codes  rarely  have  that  noble  trait 
of  clemency :  A  fellow-man  is,  alone  here,  even  when  guilty,  ever 
a  brother  (V  M.,  25.1).— “Do  not  muzzle  an  ox  when  he 
threshes  (thy  com)”  (Id.,  4),  is  another  mark  of  sympathy 
even  for  the  working  brute,  and  a  token  of  economical  wisdom 
over  and  above ;  what  is  just  is  also  prudent.  As  precious  stones, 
so  these  verses  sparkle  in  different  directions,  and  therefore  we 
had  to  treat  them  repeatedly  to  show  their  different  bearings  and 
many-sidedness. 

We  have  previously  contemplated  the  Levirate’s  Law,  with  its 
manifold  ethical,  agrarian,  tribal  and  spiritual  aspects.  We 
shall  here  add  but  one  feature.  Custom  ordained  and  the  Law 


160 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


conformed  to  it,  that  the  widow  of  a  childless  dead  brother  shall 
be  married  by  the  surviving  brother,  and  that  their  first-born 
son  assume  and  continue  the  name  of  the  childless  man  dead.  If 
he  refuses  to  marry  her,  then  (V  M.,  25.9)  she,  that  brother’s 
widow,  shall  appear  with  him  before  the  Elders,  take  off  the 
shoe  from  his  foot,  then  spit  out  in  his  presence  and  say:  “Thus 
shall  be  done  to  the  man  who  refuses  to  build  the  house  of  his 
brother.”  That  symbolism  of  olden  times,  hoary  and  old  as  it 
is,  is  telling.  In  one  and  the  same  breath  the  widow  shows  her 
readiness  to  perform  her  wifely  duties,  as  once  to  the  dead,  so 
now  to  his  living  brother,  and  the  contempt  the  latter  ostensibly 
deserves  in  refusing  to  do  his  duty  to  the  dead  brother  and  to 
his  widow,  from  mere  worldly  considerations.  The  ceremony  is 
striking,  genuine,  hoary  and  touching. 

(V  M.,  26.1)  :  “When  thou  wilt  enter  the  land  which  God 
has  entailed  upon  thee  as  thy  inheritance,  thou  shalt  take  of  the 
firstlings  of  all  the  fruit  of  the  soil  and  go  on  pilgrimage  to  the 
place  which  God  will  select  to  rest  his  name  thereon ;  then  repair 
to  the  priest  and  hand  it  him  who  shall  place  it  before  the  altar 
of  God.  Then  shalt  thou  begin  and  say  in  presence  of  God :  A 
wandering  Aramian  was  my  sire,  and  he  went  down  to  Egypt 
with  but  a  few  persons  and  became  there  a  very  numerous  peo¬ 
ple.  But  the  Egyptians  ill-treated  us  and  oppressed  us  and  im¬ 
posed  upon  us  hard  labors.  And  God  heard  our  cry  and  saw  our 
tribulations  and  brought  us  forth  from  Egypt  with  a  mighty 
hand  .  .  .  and  led  us  to  this  land,  flowing  with  milk  and  honey. 
And  here  I  have  brought  the  firstlings  of  the  fruit  of  the  soil. 
And  leaving  that  there,  thou  shalt  bow  down  before  God  and 
rejoice  at  those  bounties,  thou,  the  Levite  and  the  stranger”  .  .  . 
What  a  noble  object  lesson,  combined  with  modesty,  gratitude, 
piety  and  solidarity ! 

The  Mosaic  Syllabus. 

We  have  called  this  chapter  “Gleanings”  of  Mosaic  humanity 
and  charity,  for,  indeed,  the  major  themes  of  the  Fifth  Book  of 
Moses  we  have  previously  discussed  and  enlarged  upon  from 
nearly  all  standpoints.  Even  the  passages  noticed  here  have 


THE  MOSAIC  SYLLABUS. 


161 


accessorily  been  treated  above  in  conjunction  with  other  sub¬ 
jects.  These  minor  themes  we  have  condensed  and  discussed 
here  from  the  purely  humanitarian,  Biblical  point  of  view,  and 
hence  their  brevity  and  occasional  repetition.  And  now  comes 
the  grand  climax  (V  M.,  27.1)  :  “Moses  and  the  Elders  bade 
the  people :  Observe  this  commandment  which  I  ordain  you  to¬ 
day.  When  you  will  pass  the  Jordan,  ye  shall  set  up  large 
stones  and  write  distinctly  on  them  all  the  words  of  this  Thor  a. 
.  .  .  Mark  and  listen,  O  Israel,  this  day  thou,  indeed,  hast  be¬ 
come  the  people  of  Ihvh,  thy  God.  Hearken  then  to  the  voice  of 
the  God  Eternal  and  practice  his  commandments  .  .  .  And 
Moses  ordained  (furthermore)  :  These  (tribes)  shall  stand  up 
upon  the  Mount  Garisim  to  bless  the  people,  and  these  others 
shall  stand  upon  the  Mount  Aibal  to  curse.  Whilst  the  Levites 
shall  begin  with  a  loud  voice  and  proclaim :  Cursed  be  the  man 
who  maketh,  in  secret,  a  graven  or  molten  image,  an  abomina¬ 
tion  to  the  Lord  !  And  all  the  people  shall  say,  Amen !  Cursed 
be  he  who  despises  his  father  and  his  mother.  And  all  shall  say, 
Amen !  Cursed  be  he  who  removeth  the  landmark  of  his  neigh¬ 
bor.  And  all  shall  say,  Amen !  Cursed  be  he  who  misleads  the 
blind  !  And  all  shall  say,  Amen  !  Cursed  be  he  who  bendeth  the 
right  of  the  stranger,  the  orphan  and  the  widow.  And  all  shall 
say,  Amen  !  Cursed  be  he  who  committeth  incest  and  unchastity. 
And  all  shall  say,  Amen !  Cursed  be  he  who  smiteth  (slays)  his 
neighbor  in  secret.  And  all  shall  say,  Amen !  Cursed  be  he  who 
taketh  a  bribe  to  harm  the  life  of  the  innocent.  And  all  the  peo¬ 
ple  shall  say,  Amen !”  This  grand  and  solemn  passage  is  the 
complement  and  counterpart  of  the  Decalogue.  It  is  the  negative 
side  of  the  positive  organic  law  of  hoary  Moses.  Both  complete 
each  other,  both  are  realistic,  popular,  going  straight  to  the 
point,  appealing  to  our  best  instincts  and  our  common  sense. 
Each  insists  upon  the  normal  moral  law  born  with  us,  underly¬ 
ing  the  best  nature  of  man,  the  individual,  the  family,  the  State, 
the  people.  Each  is  part  of  the  leading,  fundamental  laws  of 
human,  civilized,  moral  society.  Hence  this  solemnity  and  this 
grand  occasion.  A  grand  occasion  indeed,  as  that  of  the  Sinai 
Revelation.  There  is  God,  Moses  and  Israel.  Here,  too,  the 


162  HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 

entire  people  is  assembled  on  the  two  twin-hills,  and  the  Levites 
grouped  in  the  midst.  There  Horeb  and  Sinai ;  here  Garisim 
and  Aibal.  There  Moses,  here  the  Levites,  proclaim  the  univer¬ 
sal  human  law ;  not  sectarian,  not  ceremonious,  not  ritualistic, 
hut  the  innate,  purely  intellectual,  universal  and  moral  law; 
deprecating  and  cursing  especially  secret  crimes,  those  great,  de¬ 
structive,  subtle,  most  dangerous  social  crimes,  not  detectable  by 
our  eyes,  senses  or  witnesses ;  secret,  occult,  venomous  crimes 
against  the  peace  and  the  welfare  of  society,  family  and  indi¬ 
vidual  ;  crimes  the  more  dangerous,  since  there  are  no  witnesses ; 
they  are  mysterious  and  hard  of  proof.  Here  the  Decalogue 
is  supplemented  by  its  counterpart.  This  is  the  Syllabus  of 
the  Mosaic  Church.  The  Decalogue  blesses  the  performers  of 
the  Law;  the  Syllabus  curses  the  law-breakers.  Both  are  the 
highest  expressions  and  norms  of  the  Biblical  society,  its  or¬ 
ganic  law,  positive  and  negative.  Further  on  we  shall  contrast 
this  Syllabus  with  that  of  another  church  and  recognize  why 
Mosaism  is  the  creed  of  man,  while  other  creeds  are  but  of  sects. 

Witchcraft. 

(II  M.,  22.17)  :  “A  witch  thou  shalt  not  let  live.”  Be¬ 
fore  closing  our  chapter  we  have  to  comment  yet  on  this 
verse.  The  import  of  witchcraft  ini  the  ancient  world  and  of 
this  short  and  abrupt  sentence  in  the  Biblical  laws,  has  not 
been  sufficiently  considered.  It  is  apparently  a  remnant  of 
prehistoric  times.  We  moderns,  having  certainly  outlived  many 
like  remnants  of  olden  views,  now  termed  superstitions,  wonder 
how  such  absurdities  could  ever  have  found  credence  with  ra¬ 
tional  people,  and  why  lawgivers  took  notice  of  them  and  enacted 
regulations  to  keep  these  practices  in  bounds,1  whilst  other  legis¬ 
lators  deemed  them  all  one  source  of  gross  mischief  and  danger 
to  society,  and  prohibited  them  indiscriminately  under  all  cir¬ 
cumstances  and  by  the  severest  punishments,  even  death.  So 
the  Mosaic  Law,  after  repeatedly  inveighing  against  such,  else¬ 
where,  as  heathen  abominations,  tersely  states  here  (II  M., 


'See  Stela  of  Hammurabi,  first  paragraph,  further  on. 


WITCHCRAFT — MAIMONIDES. 


163 


22.17)  :  “Thou  shalt  not  let  live  a  witch.”  Other  Codes  and 
nations  legally  constituted  them  as  a  learned  profession,  with 
hedges  and  prohibitions  and  licenses,  as  we  do  our  healers,  de¬ 
claring  some  doctors  and  again  others  quacks;  while  we  keep 
up  medical  schools  and  professors  for  instructing  physicians 
and  pharmacists  and  handing  them  diplomas  which  endorse 
them  as  breveted  healers.  Row  in  our  times  necromancy,  en¬ 
chantments,  witchcraft,  the  black  arts,  supernatural  influences, 
find  little  faith,  generally,  and  none  with  the  educated.  We 
deem  it  even  puerile  and  cruel  to  impose  legal  penalties  upon 
the  practice  of  such  tricks,  thinking  it  unworthy  of  any  public 
notice.  So  that  when  we  read  that,  in  comparatively  modern 
times  in  the  United  Colonies  of  Rorth  America,  witchcraft  was 
often  punished  with  banishment,  fines,  public  whippings  and 
even  death,  we  think  that  absurd,  a  remnant  of  cruel  supersti¬ 
tion,  and  the  so-called  witches  and  wizards  we  deem  innocent 
victims.  We  shall  now  adduce  irrefutable  evidence  that  we 
moderns  misunderstand  that  matter,  and  that  in  centuries  gone 
by,  witchcraft  was  not  simply  an  innocent  superstition,  a  mere 
child’s  scare,  an  idle  ghost  tale,  but  that  it  was  a  criminal  pro¬ 
fession,  a  most  dangerous  craft,  practiced  by  sharpers  upon  the 
ignorant,  disquieting  society,  allied  to  crime,  devising  wicked 
perpetrations,  and  endangering  hosts  of  victims,  casting  at  all 
times  a  veil  of  gloom  and  superstitious  fears  over  a  large  part  of 
humanity,  by  inventing  and  fostering  supernatural  agencies  and 
terrors,  vain  shadows  of  goblins  and  evil  spirits,  accompanied  by 
really  dangerous  remedies ;  conferring  upon  the  designing  en¬ 
chanter  power  over  the  masses  and  inducing  awe  and  fear  of 
them,  thus  exploiting  the  ignorant  in  purse  and  influence. 

Let  us  first  quote  the  Rabbinical  and  historical  view  on  our 
study :  “A  witch  thou  shalt  not  let  live.” 

Maimonides  in  his  Guide,  III.,  37,  arranges  all  the  command¬ 
ments  of  the  Thora  under  fourteen  headings.  There  he  says : 
“To  the  second  category  belong  all  the  enactments  which  we 
have  discussed  in  our  Treatise  on  Idolatry.  They  all  aim  to 
enfranchise  men  from  the  superstitions  of  idolatry  and  kindred 
Fluegel’s  “  Humanity,  Benevolence  and  Charity  of  the  Pentateuch.” 


164 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


abominable  notions,  as  the  different  kinds  of  witchcraft,  sooth¬ 
saying,  necromancy  etc.1  When  you  read  the  books  of  the  Sa- 
bseans  and  Chaldaeans,  the  Egyptians  and  the  Ivanaanites,  you 
will  find  that  they  believed  to  perform  marvelous,  mystic  deeds 
in  behalf  of  individuals  or  of  society.  Whilst  really  such  pre¬ 
tenses  had  no  analogy  and  verification  in  nature,  in  experience 
or  in  correct  thinking.  So,  for  instance,  they  used  to  collect 
magic  herbs  at  a  certain  time  and  at  a  certain  place,  or  take 
parts  of  certain  things,  certain  quantities  of  such  objects,  herb 
or  living  being,  observing  the  time  .  .  .  whilst  jumping,  knocking, 
shouting  or  laughing,  or  lying  down  on  their  backs,  or  burning 
or  slowly  smoking  something;  muttering  spells,  intelligible  or 
not ;  observing  the  phases  of  the  sun  or  moon ;  taking  something 
from  the  horn,  the  hair,  the  blood  of  an  animal .  .  .  and  perform¬ 
ing  therewith  charms  .  .  .  Most  of  such  crafts  were  performed  by 
womankind  ...  In  order  to  elicit  rain,  ten  maidens,  dressed 
in  red,  performed  dances  .  .  .  moving  forwards  and  backwards 
whilst  beckoning  to  the  sun.  This  would  make  the  water  come 
forth  .  .  .  Similar  incantations  in  curious  female  postures 
would  operate  against  hailstorms.  There  were  many  more  such 
absurdities  and  mad  gestures,  and  these  were  ever  executed  by 
females,  ever  looking  to  the  stars.  Since  they  believed  that  such 
herbs  belonged  to  a  special  heavenly  body,  so  they  attributed 
every  dumb  object  and  every  living  being  to  some  certain 
star  .  .  .  They  also  believed  that  all  such  mystic  performances 
are  the  mode  of  worship  of  such  luminaries,  who  are  pleased 
with  that  service,  the  spell  or  the  smoke  offered  them,  and  that, 
in  exchange,  they  would  obtain  their  desired  object.  And  after 
this,  what  bcomes  clear  by  reading  their  mystic  books  in  our 
hands  and  of  which  we  have  spoken  above,  listen  to  our  follow¬ 
ing  comments.”  Maimonides  continues: 

“Since  the  object  of  Scripture  and  the  pivot  upon  which  it 
turns  is  the  destruction  of  idolatry,  the  eradication  of  the  be¬ 
lief  that  the  stars  can  either  do  good  or  harm  in  the  domain  of 
human  affairs,  which  belief  caused  man  to  worship  them,  it  be- 

’niN  Swu'  -an  -ow  ,vnm  ,piyo— runn  *0  nscwD 


MAIMONIDES  ON  WITCHCRAFT — HORACE. 


165 


came  naturally  necessary  that  the  wizard  should  die,  he  being 
ipso  facto ,  and  undoubtedly  an  idolator  .  .  .  ISTow  we  must  re¬ 
member  that,  mostly,  witchcraft  was  practiced  by  females,  there¬ 
fore  we  read :  ‘A  witch  thou  shalt  not  let  live’  .  .  .  Again,  since 
men,  usually  and  naturally,  have  pity  to  put  women  to  death, 
therefore  accentuates  the  Sacred  Writ,  especially,  concerning 
idolatry.  ‘ Man  and  Woman /  not  mentioned  anywhere  else ;  and 
this  on  account  of  the  natural  tenderness  of  man  for  womankind. 
So  claimed  the  wizards  that  they  have  the  power  to  drive  away 
the  ferocious  beasts  and  snakes  from  country  and  city ;  or  that, 
by  their  witchcraft,  they  can  protect  the  fruits  of  the  fields  from 
all  kinds  of  damgaes,  as  from  hailstorms  etc.,  and  the  vineyards 
from  insects  obnoxious  to  them  ...  or  prevent  the  early  fall¬ 
ing  off  of  the  green  leaves  or  the  tender  fruit.  Therefore  Scrip¬ 
ture  ever  connects  idolatry  with  witchcraft,  notoriously  going  to¬ 
gether  and  claiming  to  discard  harm.  So  the  Sacred  Writ  affirms 
that  just  by  such  practices,  such  ills  will  unfailingly  take  place: 
‘I  shall  abet  against  you  the  wild  animals,  the  tooth  of  the 
beast  and  the  venom  of  the  vermin.  They  will  plant  vines  and 
not  drink  the  wine  thereof’  .  .  .  That  means  that,  however 
much  the  polytheists  pretended,  in  order  to  strengthen  their  cults 
and  make  people  believe  that  they  have  power  to  prevent  damage 
and  do  man  useful  services,  all  that  is  a  lie  and  fraud ;  that,  on 
the  contrary,  just  such  ills  will  befall  and  visit  them  on  account 
of  their  abominable  and  superstitious  practices.  Again  we  read  : 
‘In  their  customs  you  shall  not  continue  .  .  .  such  are  the  ways 
of  the  Amonites.’  They  are  branches  of  idolatry,  not  warrant¬ 
ed  by  natural  analogy  and  experience.  They  unite  witchcraft 
with  star-worship,  and  both  are  dangerous  superstitions.” 

In  further  illustration  of  our  theme,  we  adduce  the  following 
from  Horace,  a  master  mind  of  ancient  Rome.  (Horace,  Epo- 
don  Liber,  Carmen  V.,  in  Canidiam:  “Oh,  by  all  the  gods  that 
govern  this  earth  and  mankind,  wherefore  this  tumult  ?  Why 
these  savage  looks  that  you  all  throw  at  me?  O  thou,  I  conjure 
thee  by  thy  children,  if  thou  ever  hadst  any  ...  by  this  vain 
purple,  by  Jupiter,  whom  thou  outragest  .  .  .  why  dost  thou 


166 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


look  at  me  with  the  eyes  of  a  stepmother  or  of  a  wild  beast  when 
wounded  ?” 

The  text1  suggests  that  the  witch  used  to  simulate  pregnancy, 
then  claim  to  get  children,  and  then  steal  such,  particularly 
from  the  Patrician  classes,  murder  them  in  an  atrocious  manner 
and  use  their  intestines  and  marrow  for  love  potions,  similar 
medicines  and  filters.  After  the  stolen  child  had  breathed  out 
these  complaints  in  a  trembling  voice,  it  was  rudely  stripped  of 
its  superb  clothes.  The  aspect  of  that  graceful,  denuded  body 
would  have  mollified  the  most  hard-hearted  Thracian  .  .  .  Ca- 
nidia,  the  sorceress,  her  hair  loosened  and  intertwined  with 
vipers,  orders  her  assistant  to  burn,  in  a  magical  fire  a  wild  fig 
tree  uprooted  from  a  grave-hill,  funeral  cypresses,  feathers  and 
eggs  of  an  owl  stained  with  the  blood  of  a  frog,  herbs  grown  on 
the  Yolchos  and  Ibery  Mounts,  fertile  in  poison,  and  bones  torn 
from  the  gullet  of  a  hungry  she-dog. 

“In  the  meantime,  Sagana,  the  second  witch,  her  dress  tucked 
up  and  her  hair  standing  up  as  the  bristles  of  a  hedge-hog,  sprin¬ 
kles  with  water  of  the  Averne  the  entire  house.  Veia,  a  third 
witch  whom  no  remorse  ever  troubled,  hollows  the  earth  with  a 
hoe,  panting  with  the  effort.  There  the  child  is  buried  to  the 
chin,  as  the  swimmer  whose  head  is  raised  above  the  water.  It 
is  slowly  to  expire  in  the  sight  of  the  dishes  set  before  it,  but  not 
allowed  to  eat,  and  two  or  three  times  renewed  during  the  course 
of  an  everlasting  day.  And  when  the  boy’s  eyes,  ever  fixed 
upon  the  food  set  before  him,  but  ever  denied  him,  will  at  last  be 
extinguished,  his  marrow  and  liver,  thoroughly  dried,  will  make 
up  a  love-philtre.  Folia  of  Arinium  was  present,  so  the  neigh¬ 
bors  claimed;  Folia,  that  monster  of  debauchery,  she  whose 

’Horace:  In  Canidiam,  Carmen  V.,  Epodon  Liber: — 

Quid  iste  fert  tumultus?  Aut  quid  omnium 
Vultus  in  unum  me  truces? 

Per  liberos  te,  si  vocata  partubus 
Lucina  veris  affuit, 

Per  hoc  inane  purpurro  decus  precor, 

Per  improbaturum  ha?c  Jovem, 

Quid  ut  noverca  me  intueris  aut  uti 
Petita  ferro  bellua? 


HORACE  ON  WITCHCRAFT. 


167 


magic  power  detaches  the  moon  and  the  stars  from  the  sky.” 
Folia  was  the  most  infamous  witch  of  Horace’s  time,  as  the 
Greek  Medea.  All  this  shows  the  charlatanism,  the  cruelty  and 
the  pretenses  of  the  witches. 

“Then  the  cruel  Canidia,  gnawing  with  her  greenish  teeth  her 
nails,  which  the  knife  has  never  pared,  begins  her  spells  .  .  . 
What  does  she  say,  and  what  not?  ‘Faithful  witnesses  of  my 
works,  O  night  and  thou  moon,  ye  who  cause  silence  tc v  reign 
over  my  sacred  mysteries,  come!  come  ye  now!  Turn  against 
the  residence  of  our  enemy,  your  powerful  ire,  and  let  the  night 
dogs  bark  and  howl  at  that  old  debauchee  .  .  .  But  what  do  1 
see  ?  Have  those  poisons  lost  their  power  over  him  ?  Those 
poisons  which  avenged  Medea,  when  she  saw  her  superb  rival  en¬ 
veloped,  on  the  very  day  of  her  nuptials,  in  the  devouring  flames, 
hid  in  the  robe  which  had  been  presented  to  her?  O  Varus, 
what  big  tears  wilt  thou  shed !  Tea,  unknown  philtres  will 
caxise  thee  to  come  back  to  me  and  all  the  enchantments  of  the 
Marsi  will  not  render  thee  thy  reason’  ”... 

The  child,  starved  to  death  and  despairing  of  mollifying  these 
furies,  charges  them  with  its  dying  imprecations :  “I  see  it 
well,  I  cannot  disarm  your  hands  of  these  poisons.  Well,  may 
my  malediction  pursue  you !  The  effect  of  my  curses  shall  no 
sacrifice  turn  away !  After  you  have  plucked  out  my  life  I 
shall  be  a  night-fury,  shall  pursue  you  and  lacerate  your  face 
with  these  sharp  nails.  I  shall  sit  and  press  your  hard-breathing 
breast  and  frighten  away  your  slumbers.  O  ye  impure  witches ! 
the  mob  will  chase  you  from  street  to  street,  pelting  yoti  with 
stones.  The  wolves  and  the  birds  of  prey  will  tear  your  limbs, 
deprived  of  burial,  and  my  parents,  alas !  sad  to  outlive  me,  shall 
rejoice  at  this  sight”  .  .  . 

Frequently  Horace,  as  other  writers  of  old,  mentions  this  epi¬ 
demic  of  olden  times,  witchcraft,  the  horrors  it  brought  upon  in¬ 
dividuals,  families  and  the  community,  the  superstitious  and 
preposterous  mystifications  it  produced  and  fostered  in  society. 
Such  it  was  in  Roman  and  Greek  countries.  Such  it  is  alluded 
to  in  the  laws  of  Hammurabi  of  Babylonia,  and  Canaan  then 
was  ruled  by  that  same  code.  It  was  the  black  veil  of  an- 


168 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


cient  society,  the  child  of  the  many  gods  and  demons  of  polythe¬ 
ism.  Hence  the  Pentateuch  states :  “A  witch  thou  shalt  not  al¬ 
low  to  live.” 

In  the  same  book,  Epodon  Liber,  Carmen  XV.,  ad  Canidiam, 
Horace  treats  of  the  same  subject-matter,  witchcraft,  in  his  way, 
half  serious  and  half  facetious.  It  is  curious  to  see  what  an 
amount  of  influence  mischievous  mysticism,  diabolic  supemat- 
uralism,  exercised  over  the  human  mind  of  those  times.1  The 
wizard  and  the  witch  were  a  revered  and  feared  preisthood,  and 
incantation  was  a  cult,  having  its  gods,  shrines,  sacrifices,  spells 
and  even  prayers !  The  ideas  of  right  and  wrong  were  nearly 
effaced,  and  for  a  gift,  a  hymn,  a  sacrifice,  the  enchanters  could 
obtain  anything  they  desired.  Their  art  was  deemed  the  most 
powerful,  so  as  to  command  the  heavenly  bodies  and  counteract 
all  nature’s  forces.  Canidia  bombastically  pretends  (Ibid.,  74)  : 
“The  earth  will  stand  back  before  my  pride.  I  can  animate 
wax  figures,  tear  away  the  moon  from  the  heavens,  revive  the 
ashes  of  the  dead  and  prepare  love  philtres !  Shall  I  be  reduced 
to  deplore  the  impotence  of  my  art  towards  thee  alone  ?”  This 
mystic  power  for  bad  seems  to  have  had  its  root  and  raison  d’etre 
in  the  Magian  doctrine  of  Ahriman,  the  God  of  Evil.  Darkness 
and  Impurity,  as  the  counterpart  of  the  Supreme  God  of  Good, 
Light  and  Purity,  Ahura  Mazda.  It  represented  the  two  reverse 
sides  of  life  and  of  the  universe;  hence  it  was  deemed  possible 
even  by  the  wise.  It  explained  the  phenomenon :  Whence  comes 
evil  ?  The  answer  was :  Ahriman  is  its  author  and  Canidia  the 
tool.  The  votaries  of  the  Bible,  believing  only  in  one  God,  had 
no  Ahriman  opposing  Ahura,  no  wicked  divine  power;  hence 
was  the  wizard  and  witch  powerless,  shorn  of  all  halo,  a  common 
mischief-maker,  and  was  quickly  dispatched  as  a  mere  thief,  the 
most  dangerous  member  of  society :  “The  enchanter  let  not  live  !” 
That  was  the  only  humanitarian  outlet  recommended  by  law. 

‘(Titi.  Livi.  liber  XXI.  62.)  “During  that  war-winter  many  wonderful 
things  occurred  at  and  about  Home,  which  usually  happens  in  excited 
times,  and  the  popular  minds  turned  towards  religion.  A  six  months’  old 
infant  shouted  on  the  market  place:  ‘  Yo,  triumph!’  An  ox  ascended  vol¬ 
untarily  to  the  third  story  and  then,  terrified,  fell  down  (alluding  to  Hanni- 


MAIMONIDES  ON  WITCHCRAFT. 


169 


Maimonides  (Yad,  Mada,  Idolatry)  discusses  all  the  different 
sorts  of  witchcraft  as  a  branch  of  idol  worship,  priestcraft  and 
ancient,  vanquished  superstitions,  their  many  denominations, 
charms,  spells  and  incantations.  He  concludes  that  chapter, 
XI.,  16,  with  these  words:  “All  these  modes  of  witchcraft  are 
lies  and  deceit.  They  were  the  usual  tricks  to  deceive  the  igno¬ 
rant  old-time  masses.  It  is  unbecoming'  to  intelligent  Israelites 
to  follow  such  stupidities,  or  ever  to  think  they  are  of  any  avail. 
And  so  it  is  written :  ‘There  is  no  incantation  in  Jacob  or  charms 
against  Israel’  .  .  .  ‘Those  barbarous  (Canaanite)  nations  whom 
thou  supplantest  did  listen  to  wizards  and  enchanters ;  do  not 
imitate  the  same’  .  .  .  Whosoever  believes  in  such  and  imagines 
that  they  are  useful  and  wise,  only  that  the  Thora  has  forbidden 
them,  belongs  to  the  fools  and  the  ignorant,  is  among  the  unedu¬ 
cated  women  and  children.  Whilst  wise  and  right-thinking  per¬ 
sons  know  by  sound  proofs  that  all  that  the  Thora  has  forbidden 
is  far  from  being  wise,  but  is  all  error  and  inanity,  and  that 
only  the  ignorant  follow  them,  neglecting  all  logical  and  correct 
thinking  for  their  sake.  Our  LawT,  warning  against  all  such 
follies,  says:  ‘Be  thou  whole-souled  with  the  Eternal  thy  God.’  ” 
Maimonides,  namely,  is  well  aware  of  the  strong  bias  of  thought¬ 
less  J ewish  people  for  such  superstitions,  so  he  concludes  salient- 
ly  and  forcibly :  “Do  not  assume  that  anything  rational  is  for¬ 
bidden  by  our  Law\  Xo !  Rest  assured  that  anything  good  and 
wise  is  allowable,  and  that  incantation  and  charms  are  prohib¬ 
ited  for  the  simple  reason  that  they  are  totally  useless  and  often 
dangerous  to  the  peace  and  well-being  of  the  deceived  masses.” 

bal  in  Italy).  A  crow  flew  down  and  settled  on  the  couch  of  the  goddess 
Iuno  ...  It  rained  with  stones  ...  A  wolf  snatched  the  sword  from  a 
soldier  on  guard  and  carried  it  off  .  .  .  The  Decemviri  (prophets)  consulted 
the  Sacred  Books.  Nine  days  of  penitence  were  proclaimed,  sacrifices  were 
offered  in  all  the  temples  of  the  gods.  Forty  pounds  of  gold  was  carried 
to  the  temple  of  Iuno,  a  statue  to  her  given,  a  couch  to  Caere,  etc.  All 
the  gods,  temples  and  priesthoods  were  endowed— so  ordained  by  the 
Sacred  Books  !  This  quieted  the  people.  Hace  procurata  votaque  ex  libris 
Sibylinis  magna  ex  parte  ievaverant  religione  animos.”  In  the  times  of 
Horace  and  Justinian  it  was  not  better. 


170 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


CHAPTER  VIL 

Laws  of  Hammurabi,  King  of  Babylon  about  2250  B,  C. 

Translated  into  English  by  the  writer,  from  the  German  of  Dr.  Hugo 
Winkler,  Leipzig,  1902,  and  corrected  from  the  German-Hebrew  of  Pro¬ 
fessor  D.  Muller,  in  the  Jahr-Bericht  of  Isr.  Theological  Lehranstall  of 
Rector  Dr.  A.  M.  Schwarz,  Vienna. 

It  is  the  oldest  complete  legal  code  extant,  engraved  on  a 
Diorit-block  in  about  49  columns,  of  which  5  columns  have  later 
been  erased.  The  Stela,  or  style,  measures  in  height  2.25  metres, 
its  circumference  is  1.65  meters,  and  below  it  has  1.90  metres. 
It  contains  a  cunieforin  inscription  on  a  Stela  formerly  erected 
in  the  Sun-Temple  at  Sippar,  ISTorth  Babylonia,  and  discovered 
by  the  French  exploration  under  J.  de  Morgan  in  the  beginning 
of  1902,  on  the  Akropolis  Hill,  at  Susa,  Persia.  It  contains  282 
sections,  those  between  65-100  having  been  erased  by  some  later 
king.  It  forms  a  fairly  complete  Code  of  laws,  civil,  criminal, 
agrarian,  commercial  and  industrial,  of  a  settled  community, 
with  a  powerful,  dominant,  conquering  class  and  a  subject-peo¬ 
ple,  with  marked  and  strong  discriminations  between  both  these 
parties.  It  deals  with  all  practical  cases  occurring  in  a  real,  live 
society  and  State  of  those  times  and  environments ;  with  witch¬ 
craft,  ordeal  by  water,  slavery,  crimes  entailing  maiming,  or¬ 
deals  or  divine  judgments  by  fire  and  water,  bribed  judges,  theft, 
receiving  stolen  goods,  housebreaking,  highway  robbery,  misap¬ 
propriations,  incest,  judiciary  procedure,  proof  by  witnesses, 
oath  and  ordeals,  administration,  tax-collecting,  partnership, 
principal  and  interest.1  The  Stela  begins  with  a  lengthy,  ora¬ 
torical  introduction,  and  closes  with  a  no  less  flowery  peroration. 
Polytheism  and  Kinghood  are  the  dominant  social  factors. 

As  in  our  other  studies  on  the  great  legislative  Codes,  so  we 
offer  here  to  the  reader  a  sketch  of  the  leading  paragraphs  of  the 
Babylonian  Code  of  2250  B.  C.  ago,  as  an  interesting,  antique, 
legislative  document,  but  particularly  and  saliently  with  the  fol- 

'The  theme  has  been  treated  by  H.  Winkler,  Sam  Oettli,  C.  H.  W.  Johns, 
Joh  Jeremias,  R.  Daruti,  Carl  Stoob,  G.  Cohn,  D.  H.  Muller  and  others. 


INSCRIPTION  ON  THE  STELA.  OF  HAMMURABI. 


171 


lowing  object  in  view,  viz:  It  has  been  claimed  by  many,  and 
most  notoriously  by  a  Berlin  Professor1  who  lectured  on  it  be¬ 
fore  German  authorities  and  gained  a  remarkable  notoriety  bv 
it,  that  the  Mosaic  Code,  its  God-idea,  its  monotheism,  its  Deca¬ 
logue,  its  Sabbath  and  its  laws  generally,  are  borrowed  and  cop¬ 
ied  from  Babylonian  sources,  and  especially  from  the  Hammu¬ 
rabi  Code  .  .  .  The  reader,  finding  here  verbatim  an  extract  of 
its  principal  sections  and  enactments,  will  have  the  best  oppor¬ 
tunity  to  judge  for  himself.  We  hope  he  will  find  out  that  the 
claims  of  the  Berlin  Professor  etc.  are  wholly  and  entirely,  yea 
ridiculously,  unfounded  and  unwarranted,  as  we  shall  show  and 
enlarge  upon  it  further  on  at  the  close  of  this  epitome. 

Inscription  on  the  Stela  of  Hammurabi. 

“When  Ann  and  Bel  and  Marduk,  son  of  Ea,  the  God  of  Jus¬ 
tice,  gave  over  to  me  mankind  as  his  domain,  and  established 
Babylon  as  an  eternal  Kingdom,  them  they  called  me,  Hammru- 
rabi,  the  sublime  Prince,  to  make  justice  prevail  in  the  land,  to 
annihilate  the  wicked,  that  the  strong  shall  not  harm  the  weak, 
to  advance,  as  Shamash,  Ann  and  Bel,  the  well-being  of  men ; 
they  called  me  by  my  name,  Hammurabi,  the  Prince”  .  .  . 
(enumerating  his  various  eminent  labors  in  the  service  of  the 
gods,  the  temples,  the  worship,  as  also  his  conquests  in  all  the 
four  directions  of  the  world  etc.)  “the  royal  scion  of  eternity, 
the  mighty  King,  the  Son  of  Babylon,  irradiating  light  on  the 
land  of  Sumer  and  Akkad,  whom  obey  all  the  four  parts  of  the 
world  .  .  .  When  Marduk  gave  me  the  mission  to  govern  men, 
to  secure  justice  and  protection,  to  the  land,  then  I  have  enacted 
the  following  laws  for  the  welfare  of  my  subjects  : 

(Sec.  1)  :  “If  a  person  charges  another  with  having  commit¬ 
ted  murder  by  witchcraft,  and  cannot  prove  the  charge,  he  shall 
be  killed.”  The  Pentateuch  and  the  Talmud  admit  of  counter¬ 
witnesses,  alibi,  Hazuma,  in  matters  of  real  fact,  not  in  such  idle 
cases,  not  provable  either  way.  It  is  misleading  and  harsh. 
Hammurabi  devotes  much  attention  to  witchcraft ;  Moses,  three 
words :  “A  witch  let  not  live.”  The  leading  characteristics 

’In  “  Babel  and  Bible,”  Leipzig,  1902. 


172 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


of  the  Babylonian  legislation  are  harshness  and  terror,  befitting 
a  conquering  and  subjugating  society. 

(2)  :  “If  anyone  brings  charges  against  another  and  that  one 
(accepting  the  challenge  for  an  ordeal)  springs  into  the  river,  if 
the  river  takes  and  holds  (drowns)  him,  then  the  accuser  shall 
take  possession  of  the  latter  one’s  house.  But  if  the  river  proves 
him  to  be  innocent  (by  not  drowning  him),  then  the  accuser 
shall  be  killed,  and  the  accuser’s  house  becomes  the  possession  of 
the  innocently  accused  person.”  Apparently  incantations,  ban¬ 
ning  and  ordalias,  or  miraculous  judgment,  were  very  frequent 
in  those  times  and  that  country.  The  Pentateuch  treats  witch¬ 
craft  rather  abruptly,  as  discussed  above. 

(3)  :  “If  anyone  in  litigation  raises  a  charge  of  malice 
against  another  person,  and  cannot  prove  his  charge,  then,  if 
that  is  a  case  of  life  and  death,  he  shall  be  killed.”  More  defi¬ 
nite  is  the  Mosaic  enactment  (V  M.,  19.19),  and  the  Rabbin¬ 
ical  expoundings  render  that  lucid  and  just.  In  the  Stela  it  is 
harsh  and  indefinite,  giving  room  to  chicanery. 

(4)  :  “If  he  charges  him  with  (bribery)  acceptance  of  grain 
or  money,  then  he  shall  bear  the  costs  resulting  from  the  liti¬ 
gation.” 

(5)  :  “When  a  judge  passes  judgment,  giving  his  verdict  in 
writing,  and  afterwards  annuls  his  own  judgment  and  verdict, 
then  he  shall  pay  the  damages  ensuing  therefrom,  twelve  fold, 
lie  shall,  besides,  be  publicly  dismissed  from  his  judgeship  and 
nevermore  be  allowed  to  reoccupy  it.” 

(6)  :  “If  anyone  has  committed  theft  upon  God’s  Temple  or 
the  royal  palace,  he  shall  be  killed.  Also  he  that  received 
and  hid  those  stolen  goods.”  Apparently,  the  reigning  gods  and 
princes  were  foreign  conquerors,  hated  by  the  native  laity  and 
priests,  hence  this  aristocratic  severity;  Mosaism  never  punishes 
theft  with  death. 

(7)  :  “If  anyone  accepts  silver,  gold,  slaves,  cattle  etc.  from 
anyone’s  son  or  slave,  without  legal  concurrence  of  Elders  and 

'Treated  above;  a  remnant  of  ancient  belief,  not  provable,  and  not 
admitting  of  witnesses,  either  way. 


LAWS  ON  THE  STELA  OF  HAMMURABI. 


173 


contract,  buying  it  or  keeping  it,  he  is  considered  a  thief  and  is 
to  be  killed  as  such.”  Again  death  for  theft!  This,  too,  proves 
the  foreign  origin  of  the  lawgiver,  suspicious  of  the  native  popu¬ 
lations.  Mark,  also,  the  son  is  at  par  with  the  slave,  proving 
slavery  and  polygamy  as  the  social  features. 

(8)  :  “If  anyone  steals  cattle  or  sheep  belonging  to  the  gods 
or  the  king,  he  shall  pay  30  times  its  value;  if  it  belongs  to  a 
poor  man,1  10  times.  If  the  thief  has  nothing  to  pay  with,  he 
shall  be  killed.”  Here  is  the  same  cruel,  aristocratic  principle. 
For  theft  the  Pentateuch  ordains,  five,  four  and  two  fold  pay¬ 
ment  ;  if  poor,  the  thief  is  to  be  sold  to  work  for  not  over  six 
years,  never  attainting  the  thief’s  life,  liberty,  limb  and  family ; 
he  ever  remains  a  free  man  and  brother.  How  much  superior 
to  the  above !  All  explains  the  democratic,  Mosaic  society  and 
the  aristocratic,  conquering  one  of  Hammurabi. 

(16)  :  “If  anyone  harbors  in  his  house  a  fugitive  slave,  and 
does  not  deliver  him  or  her  on  the  public  announcement  of  the 
major  domus,  he  shall  die.”  The  Pentateuch  teaches  the  very 
contrary:  “Thou  shalt  not  deliver  to  his  master  the  runaway 
slave,  who  takes  refuge  with  thee.  He  shall  stay  with  thee  (V 
M.,  23.16)  wherever  he  pleases.”  The  Babylonian  Code  was  a 
Code  against  the  native  Babylonians,  legalizing  the  master’s 
usurpations  and  securing  them  by  law. 

(17)  :  “If  anyone  meets  and  takes  hold  of  such  a  fugitive 
slave,  and  brings  him  back  to  his  owner,  that  one  shall  pay  him 
2  sekel  (for  his  trouble).”  All  this  points  to  a  legislating  con¬ 
queror  trying  to  corroborate  might  by  law. 

(18)  :  “If  the  slave  does  not  reveal  the  name  of  his  master, 
his  captor  shall  bring  him  to  the  government  officer,  who  shall 
inquire  for  and  return  him  to  his  master.”  Of  course,  the  gov¬ 
ernment  was  of  the  reigning  party. 

(19) :  “If  (the  captor)  hides  the  slave  in  his  house  ...  he 
(the  captor)  shall  be  killed.”  For  he  was  a  native,  of  course, 
and  intended  to  screen  the  fugitive  fellow-native,  hence  this 
bloody  rigor  against  him.  We  saw  how  Mosaism  bids  the  very 
contrary:  “Let  him  stay  with  thee  wherever  he  pleases.” 

1,1  Poor  man  ”  apparently  means  an  enfranchised  one,  an  emancipated  slave. 


174 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


(21)  :  “If  anyone  digs  a  hole  into  a  house  and  breaks  in, 
they  shall  kill  him  at  once  and  bury  him  in  that  very  hole.” 
II  M.,  22.1-2,  ordains:  The  housebreaking  burglar  shall  pay, 
or  be  sold  for  the  amount  of  the  theft.  If  killed  in  daytime,1 
that  is  murder,  unless  that  be  in  self-defense,  expounds  the  Tal¬ 
mud.  Here  the  Lawgiver  aims  at  securing  both  the  proprietor's 
goods  and  the  thief’s  life,  for  he,  too,  is  a  citizen.  The  Baby¬ 
lonian  Code  hates  alike  the  thief  and  the  native,  both  identified 
in  this  case.  The  Talmud  here  deviates  from  the  plain,  salient 
sense  of  the  Hebraic  text,  coming  nearer  the  Babylonian  en¬ 
actment,  apparently  mediating  between  the  two  codes.  “If  the 
sun  shines  upon  him,”  the  Rabbis  interpret :  “If  it  be  clear  as 
sunlight  that  the  thief  would  not  commit  murder.”  Such  cases 
are  never  so  clear.  See  above  on  this. 

(22)  :  “If  anyone  commits  robbery  and  is  caught  thereat,  he 
shall  be  killed.”  The  Mosaic  Code  has  him  pay  the  principal 
and  a  fine ;  his  life  is  not  attainted. 

(23)  :  “If  the  robber  is  not  caught,  then  the  robbed  one 
shall  bring  his  claim  before  the  gods  and  the  Town-Elders, 
swear  before  them,  and  the  community  shall  compensate  him 
fully  for  the  loss.”  The  community  is  made  responsible  to  the 
dominating  class.  Mosaism  knows  no  such  artificial  solidarity. 
Ho  doubt,  the  community  meant  the  subjugated  people. 

(25)  :  “When  fire  breaks  out  in  a  house,  and,  under  the  claim 
of  putting  it  out,  someone  steals  the  property  thereof,  he  shall 
be  thrown  into  the  fire.”  Here,  as  elsewhere,  Hammurabi  gives 
life  for  property ;  never  allowed  in  the  Pentateuch.  This  is  the 
eternal  antagonism  between  a  homogeneous,  free  community, 
and  one  of  classes  and  masses. 

(30)  :  “If  a  military  or  civil  officer,  instead  of  cultivating 
and  utilizing,  neglects  his  field,  garden  and  house,  and  another 
one  occupies  and  utilizes  such  for  three  consecutive  years  .  .  . 
they  belong  to  the  latter  one  who  took  possession  of  and  culti¬ 
vated  them ;  he  shall  continue  so.” 

'“Damim  lo,”  that  is  the  real  sense  of  the  verse.  The  Talmud  takes  it 
figuratively. 


LAWS  ON  THE  STELA  OF  HAMMURABI. 


175 


Here  is  a  bold  limitation  law  of  only  three  years,  exceedingly 
harsh !  Apparently,  Hammurabi  sacrificed  the  proprietor  to  the 
property,  the  inhabitants  to  the  land.  His  aim  was  industry, 
not  the  people ;  he  was  a  Canaanite  conqueror,  and  desired  to 
stimulate  wealth  and  work,  not  the  native  race,  ostensibly  inim¬ 
ical  to  him.  Apparently  the  native  remained  on  the  ground  and 
soil  as  menials  and  serfs,  as  the  European  peasant  of  the  Middle 
Ages.  The  Homan  Law  set  a  hundred  years  as  limitation. 
Whilst  the  Mosaic  Law  had  none ;  it  never  allowed  the  alienation 
of  the  family  acre ;  on  the  contrary,  the  cycles  of  Release  and 
Jubilee  forcibly  restored  the  sold  ground  and  farm  to  the  origi¬ 
nal  owner.  It  allowed  no  limitation  or  prescription  whatever, 
however  long  occupied  by  the  landgrabber.  That  Saxon  farmer 
who  remarked  that:  “One  hundred  years  of  injustice  proves  not 
one  year  of  justice,”  took  his  cue  from  Moses  and  Lasalle,  not 
from  Hammurabi’s  Code,  which  ejected  an  exiled  cultivator  to 
favor  a  partisan  follower,  of  the  dominant  caste. 

(32)  :  “When  an  officer,  a  magistrate  of  the  army,  who  on 
the  road  of  the  king  (in  war)  was  taken  captive,  then  ransomed 
by  a  slave-merchant  and  brought  back  to  his  place,  if  he  has  there 
the  means  to  redeem  himself,  he  shall  do  so ;  if  not,  he  shall  be 
redeemed  by  the  Temple  of  his  place;  if  the  Temple  has  not 
the  means,  the  (royal)  Court  shall  ransom  him.  His  field,  gar¬ 
den  and  house  shall  not  be  used  to  redeem  him.”  The  lawgiver 
throws  the  burden  of  his  ransom  upon  the  public,  and  secures 
to  him  the  possession  of  his  family  acre.  Here  again  we  find 
the  privileges  of  the  invading  army  sanctioned  by  law.  This 
paragraph  has  no  parallel  in  the  Mosaic  Code,  but  it  has  in  the 
Rabbinical  Law  (see  Maimonides,  Tract.  Slavery),  where  the 
duty  of  redeeming  captives  is  recommended  as  the  highest  char¬ 
ity  and  is  incumbent  upon  the  community  at  large,  above  all 
other  charitable  duties ;  but  no  discrimination  is  made  between 
soldier  and  civilian.  The  preference  of  first  ransom  is  granted 
to  the  scholar,  not  the  military  man  ;  that  is  characteristic. 

(37)  :  “If  anyone  buys  the  field,  garden  and  house  of  an 
officer,  magistrate  or  rent-paying  farmer,  his  contract  of  pur- 

Fluegel’s  “Humanity,  Benevolence  and  Charity  of  the  Pentateuch.” 


176 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PANTATEUCH. 


chase  is  to  be  annulled  and  he  loses  his  money ;  field,  garden  and 
house  go  back  to  their  (original)  owner.”  Here  is  an  important 
provision,  akin  to  the  Mosaic  inalienability  and  perpetuity  of  the 
inherited  acre,  to  stay  with  the  family.  But  it  is  more  than 
probable  that  it  refers  only  to  feudal  lands  granted  by  the  king 
to  his  lords,  vassals,  soldiers  and  officers,  for  military  services, 
not  to  the  nation  or  people  of  the  subjected  land.  The  very  form 
and  phrasing  of  the  law  shows  that  it  is  in  favor  of  the  domi¬ 
nant  class,  not  the  people.  The  Mosaic  enactment  is  democratic, 
universal,  in  behalf  of  the  entire  people,  the  stranger  included. 

A  large  number  of  laws  treat  of  business  transactions,  part¬ 
nerships,  goods,  principal  and  profit.  Interest,  usury  or  profit  on 
money,  grain  or  goods  lent,  are  very  frequently  mentioned  and 
allowed,  without  any  limit,  by  that  Babylonian  Code,  in  flagrant 
opposition  to  the  Mosaic  Law,  which  forbids  it  towards  poor 
people,  indigenous  Jews  and  non-Jews.  The  Babylonians  were 
industrial  nations,  and  the  law  had  no  other  consideration  but 
that;  it  aimed  at  encouraging  business,  not  fostering  benevo¬ 
lence. 

(102)  :  “A  capitalist  advancing  to  a  man  money  without  in¬ 
terest  for  speculation  in  business,  and  the  middleman  losing  all, 
or  part  of  it,  must  repay  the  principal  to  the  capitalist”  (without 
interest,  who  is  considered  as  a  partner  in  the  business?). 

(103)  :  “If  on  his  journey  an  enemy  robs  him  of  all  or  part 
of  his  goods,  he  shall  swear  by  the  gods  (of  his  innocence),  and 
he  is  not  responsible  therefor.” 

(104)  :  “When  a  merchant  gives  the  middleman  grain,  wool 
etc.  to  sell  on  speculation,  a  judicial  act  must  be  made  about  it, 
and  he  shall  keep  a  receipt  for  any  moneys  he  may  pay  to  the 
merchant.”  All  transactions  must  be  done  in  writing — proof 
that  the  writing  art  was  generally  understood  and  practiced  in 
common  life. 

(105)  :  “If  he  neglects  to  take  a  receipt  for  his  disburse¬ 
ments,  he  cannot  claim  such  to  his  credit.”  The  Rabbinical  dic¬ 
tum  is  not  so  plain,  the  business  spirit  not  being  there  much  de¬ 
veloped.  Still,  the  general  rule  was :  Whosoever  makes  a  claim 
against  his  neighbor  must  bring  proof  for  it. 


LAWS  ON  THE  STELA  OF  HAMMURABI. 


177 


(106)  :  “When  contestations  about  such  moneys  arise,  the 
merchant  shall  prove  his  claim  before  the  gods,  the  witnesses  and 
Elders,  and  the  middleman  must  make  good  the  claim  threefold 
its  amount.”  The  Rabbis  put  the  burden  of  the  proof  ever  on 
the  claimant,  as  remarked,  hut  never  ask  a  threefold  payment  in 
a  simple  contest. 

(107)  :  “If  the  capitalist  is  convicted  of  fraudulent  dealings 
towards  the  middleman,  he  must  compensate  him  six  fold.”  All 
that  shows  the  rigid  and  purely  industrial  character  of  that 
Code,  without  any  bias  for  mercy  or  even  equity. 

(109)  :  “A  female  inn-keeper  retailing  wine  and  harboring 
conspirators  in  her  establishment  and  not  delivering  them  unto 
the  government,  shall  be  put  to  death.”  Here  we  see  a  foreign 
master,  anxious  for  his  own  security,  on  the  lookout  for  rebels. 

(110)  :  “If  a  consecrated  woman,  nun  or  vestal  opens  a  wine- 
house,  or  if  she  merely  visits  a  drinking  place  with  intent  to 
liquor,  she  shall  be  burnt.”  This  severity  points  to  a  great 
moral  depravity,  just  by  its  severity. 

(112)  :  “Any  movable  goods  entrusted  to  a  party  for  safe¬ 
keeping  or  for  delivery  to  some  place  and  person,  fraudulently 
detained  by  that  party,  if  so  proven,  shall  be  restituted  five 
fold.”  The  Pentateuch  punishes  the  thief  with  two,  four  and 
five  fold  restitution,  according  to  the  import  of  the  stolen  goods 
to  the  owner. 

(115)  :  “If  an  insolvent  man  is  imprisoned  for  debt  in  the 
creditor’s  house,  and  dies  a  natural  death  there,  there  is  no  room 
for  compensation.”  (Neither  the  sum  involved  nor  the  dead 
person  shall  be  compensated  for?)  Mosaism  allows  no  impris¬ 
onment  for  debt ;  its  axiom  is :  Goods  for  goods,  limb  for  limb, 
life  for  life ;  not  liberty  for  goods. 

(116)  :  “When  that  imprisoned  man  dies  from  blows  or 
other  bad  treatment  there,  and  he  be  the  son  of  a  freeborn  man, 
then,  if  proved,  the  son  of  the  maltreator  shall  he  killed ;  and 
if  the  dead  man  is  a  slave,  one-third  of  a  mine  in  silver  shall  be 
paid.  Any  other  creditor’s  outlay  on  him  is  lost.”  That  pro¬ 
vision  becomes  logical  on  considering  the  Oriental  view  that, 
not  only  the  debtor,  personally,  could  be  imprisoned,  but  also 


178 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


any  of  his  family  and  dependents.  Even  so  could  delinquency 
be  avenged  upon  the  family  of  the  wrong-doer.  Mosaism  accen¬ 
tuates  the  contrary:  “The  parents  shall  not  die  for  the  children, 
nor  the  children  for  the  parents ;  everyone  shall  die  for  his  own 
guilt”  .  .  .  Here  is  an  immense  advance  over  Babylonia. 

(117)  :  “When  an  insolvent  debtor  gives  away  to  the  cred¬ 
itor  his  wife,  son  or  daughter,  for  money  due,  or  as  a  pledge  for 
debt,  they  shall  stay  three  years  and  work  in  that  condition, 
and  then  go  free.”  The  Pentateuch  never  allowed  any  such  per¬ 
sonal  sale  or  alienation.  A  minor  girl  could  be  sold  by  her  poor 
father,  on  the  tacit  condition  to  marry  her  master,  or  his  son, 
or  go  soon  free  (II  M.,  21.4)  (at  puberty?)  Mosaism  depre¬ 
cating  free  love  under  any  shape,  just  as  total  enslavement. 

(120)  :  “Goods  entrusted  for  safe-keeping  to  a  man,  and 
contention  arising  thereupon  about  their  partial  damage  or  total 
theft,  then  the  owner  of  those  goods  shall  prove  his  claim  before 
the  judge  and  be  paid  by  the  depositee  (or  bailee).” 

(122)  :  “If  anyone  delivers  for  safe-keeping  goods  to  his 
fellow-man,  any  such  deposit  must  be  made  before  witnesses, 
and  by  written  document,  and  the  terms  are  to  be  stipulated.” 

(123)  :  “Without  witnesses  and  judicial  document  concern¬ 
ing  the  terms  of  safe-keeping,  there  is  no  legal  claim  for  that.” 

(127)  :  “If  anyone  raises  his  finger  (in  token  of  insult  or 
menace)  against  a  consecrated  woman,  or  a  vestal,  or  a  married 
woman,  and  cannot  prove  it  (his  charge),  that  man  shall  be 
prostrated  before  the  judge  and  his  forehead  branded.”  Mosa- 
ism  has  no  parallel  to  that.  V  M.,  25.11,  states:  “When  a 
woman,  in  a  quarrel,  takes  hold  of  the  pudenda  .  .  .  her  hands 
shall  he  lopped  off,”  is  a  complicated  case  and  no  parallel  to 
Hammurabi.  Moreover,  it  was  set  aside  by  the  Talmudical 
criminal  procedure  as  obsolete. 

(128)  :  “If  anyone  marries  a  woman  without  a  written 
marriage  contract,  that  woman  is  not  a  wedded  wife.”  Just 
the  same  is  originally  Rabbinical  law;  the  document  is  termed 
the  Ketliuba,  written  agreement.  Nevertheless,  this  was  later 
assumed  as  self-evident,  and  hence  when  the  public  law  screens 


LAWS  ON  THE  STELA  OF  HAMMURABI. 


179 


the  wifely  rights,  no  such  written  act  or  Kethuba  is  necessary 
(which  is  now  the  fact  all  over  the  civilized  world). 

(129)  :  “Adultery  is  punished  with  tying  both  the  offend¬ 
ing  parties  and  throwing  them  into  the  river — except  if  the  hus¬ 
band  chooses  to  pardon  her.”  Mosaism  knows  not  any  such  ex¬ 
ception  ;  adultery  is  punished  with  death,  not  drowning.  Still 
the  Rabbinical  law  rendered  death  punishment  pretty  rai’e,  the 
legal  proofs  being  very  hard  to  furnish.  But  in  principle  adul¬ 
tery  is  a  deathly  crime,  private  and  public ;  the  pardon  of  the 
husband  alone  is  of  no  avail;  society,  morality,  the  divine  jus¬ 
tice,  are  offended. 

(132)  :  “Suspicion  of  adultery  is  settled  against  a  married 
woman  by  (the  ordeal  of  her)  jumping  into  the  river.”  The  text 
says :  “If  a  hint  is  thrown  out  againts  a  married  woman,  not 
caught  e  flagrante  delicto,  she  shall  submit  to  the  water  ordeal  to 
satisfy  her  husband’s  suspicions.”  This  is  rude  and  crude. 
Better  to  the  point  is  the  Biblical  water  ordeal,  viz:  Mosaism 
subjects  her  to  the  ordeal  of  drinking  the  bitter  waters,1  which 
simply  work  upon  her  consciousness,  either  of  guilt,  of  inno¬ 
cence,  or  of  simple  indiscretion,  without  unnecessarily  hazard¬ 
ing  a  human  life.  Here,  too,  we  may  measure  the  immense  su¬ 
periority  of  the  Mosaic  over  the  Babylonian  Code.  Here  the 
suspected  woman  jumps  into  the  river  and  is  drowned  or  not, 
according  to  the  current  and  depth  of  the  river,  not  her  guilt 
or  innocence.  This  is  a  piece  of  priestcraft  and  jugglery.  In 
Mosaism  the  ordeal  is  fully  psychological,  innocent  and  hits  the 
nail  on  the  head.  She  is  either  an  adulteress  or  at  best  an  in¬ 
discreet  creature.  She  is  first  subjected  to  a  public  judgment, 
whether  there  be  cause  for  suspicion ;  the  mere  marital  jealousy 
is  not  sufficient  evidence  for  such  a  trial.  Then  she  is  to  ap¬ 
pear,  with  her  husband,  in  the  national,  revered  Temple,  with  a 
coarse-meal  sacrifice,  a  jealousy  offering;  she  is  unveiled,  her 
hair  disheveled,  exposed  to  the  gaze  of  the  multitude ;  the  priest 
questions  her,  holding  up  a  water-cup,  mixing  it  with  some  sim¬ 
ple  dust  from  the  altar,  pronouncing  a  fearful  imprecation 


'IV.  M.  4.24  Dn-INDn  D'lDn 


180 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


over  her  if  she  be  guilty,  writing  that  curse  down  upon  a  tablet, 
dipping  it  into  the  cup ;  and  she,  answering  Amen !  Amen !  to 
that  horrifying  conjuration,  swallows  it  down  with  the  water ! 
That  curse  and  her  own  conscience  now  work  upon  her  mor¬ 
ally,  psychologically;  she  dies  from  shame,  fear  and  remorse; 
or,  if  she  feels  innocent,  she  comes  out  unharmed  and  triumph¬ 
ant,  having  proven  by  her  bold  submission  to  the  trial  her  purity 
and  honorable  innocence,  shamed  her  malicious  accusers  and 
rivals,  and  compelled  her  credulous  husband  to  acknowledge  her 
rescued  standing,  chastity  and  good  character.  Nobody  will 
deny  that  here  is  a  method  of  proving  innocence  infinitely  su¬ 
perior  to  Hammurabi’s,  or  to  any  other  ordeal  of  more  recent 
times,  even  to  our  present  duelling.  If  at  all,  the  Mosaic  one  is 
more  psychologic  and  more  to  the  point.  (See  Sota,  Mishna, 
VI.,  2.;  II.,  2-5;  III.,  4.) 

(133-134)  :  “If  a  woman  whose  husband  has  become  a  war- 
prisoner  leaves  her  house,  though  provided  with  the  necessaries 
of  life,  and  goes  to  another  man’s  house,  she  shall  he  thrown 
into  the  river,  if  convicted.  But  if  she  is  not  provided  in  her 
own  house  and  leaves  it,  she  is  not  guilty  (of  misconduct).” 

(135)  :  “If  unprovided  at  home,  she  goes  into  another  man’s 
house  and  has  children  by  him,  and  later  her  first  husband 
(released  from  prison)  comes  home,  she  shall  return  to  him, 
leaving  those  recent  children  with  their  own  father.”  Here  is  a 
specimen  of  Canaanitish,  Babylonian  laxity  and  immorality, 
against  which  the  Pentateuch  often  warns  its  people,  as  “an 
abomination  before  God.”  The  Babbis  are  very  lenient  to  a 
woman  abandoned  by  her  husband  (Aguna),  but  not  to  such  an 
extent;  poverty  excuses  no  adultery  and  cleanses  no  bastards. 
In  Babylon  it  did.  Still,  “Children  not  to  die  for  parents’  sins” 
is  Mosaic,  too. 

(136)  :  “When  anyone  leaves  (voluntarily)  his  house,  his 
forsaken,  unprovided  wife  shall  not  return  to  him  on  his  com¬ 
ing  home.”  The  Talmud  is  lenient  to  such  an  Aguna,  still  not 
to  such  a  degree.  The  Biblical  word  does  not  provide  for  the 
case.  Apparently  abandonment  was  rare  then.  The  modern  law 
pronounces  divorce. 


LAWS  ON  THE  STELA  OF  HAMMURABI. 


181 


(137)  :  “When  a  man  desires  to  divorce  his  wife  or  his  con¬ 
cubine  of  whom  he  has  children,  he  must  return  to  her  her 
dower  (Hedunyah),  and  give  her  besides  part  of  his  field,  gar¬ 
den  and  earnings,  that  she  have  wherewith  to  rear  her  children. 
When  these  are  grown,  she  shall  get,  as  her  own  portion,  as 
much  as  any  one  of  his  sons,  and  she  may  re-marry  whomsoever 
she  pleases.”  This  is  nearly  Rabbinical  view,  too. 

(138)  :  “If  she  has  no  children,  he  shall  return  her  the  full 
wedding  presents  and  dower  brought  home  from  her  father’s 
house  and  dismiss  her.  But  if  she  never  had  any,  he  shall  give 
her  one  mine  in  silver  as  a  gift  of  dismissal.”  Similar  is  the 
Rabbinical  law  termed  Kethuba. 

(145)  :  “If  anyone  has  a  wife  that  bears  him  no  children 
and  he  determines  to  take  a  concubine,  then  that  secondary  wife 
is  not  to  act  proudly,  as  the  equal  of  the  legitimate  (first)  wife.” 
This  covers  the  case  of  Abraham,  Sara  and  Hagar.  The  Deity 
coincided  with  Sara’s  plea  (Gen.,  16). 

(146)  :  “If  anyone  has  a  wife  and  she  gives  him  a  hand¬ 
maid  to  be  his  (secondary)  wife,  who,  bearing  him  children, 
claims  the  rank  of  her  mistress,  because  she  bore  children,  then 
her  mistress  shall  not  sell  her  for  money ;  she  shall  degrade  her 
and  place  her  among  her  household  slaves.”  Abraham  did  bet¬ 
ter  ;  he  sent  Hagar  to  her  old  home ;  unfortunately,  there  were 
no  hotels  and  no  Pullman  cars  at  hand,  hinc  lacrimae. 

(147)  :  “If  she  bore  no  children,  her  mistress  may  sell  her 
for  money.”  Sara  did  not.  This  throws  all  the  necessary  light 
upon  the  difficulties  between  the  rivals,  Sara  and  Hagar ;  Abra¬ 
ham  had  to  conform  to  those  general  customs,  alluded  to  in 
aforesaid  paragraphs,  and  Hagar’s  case  was  settled  by  these  cus¬ 
toms  of  Canaan-Babylonia. 

(148)  :  “A  wife  habitually  sick  with  consumption  shall  not 
be  divorced,  but  kept  and  supported  for  life  in  the  marital 
house.  The  husband  can  marry  another  woman.”  This  is  Rab¬ 
binical  law,  too. 

(151)  :  “Husband  and  wife,  respectively,  are  not  personal¬ 
ly  responsible  for  debts  either  of  them  had  contracted  before 
their  marriage  union.”  The  same  is  the  Rabbinical  view. 


182 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


(152)  :  “They  are  both  responsible  for  debts  contracted  by 
either  after  their  union.”  The  Rabbinical  view  here  is  not  per¬ 
fectly  clear.  If  she  was  a  contracting  party  and  is,  besides, 
mistress  of  a  fortune,  it  will  coincide  with  the  Babylonian  Code ; 
if  not,  not. 

(153)  :  “A  wife  causing  the  assassination  of  her  husband 
for  the  sake  of  another  man,  shall  be  impaled.”  According  to 
the  Pentateuch  and  Rabbis,  only  the  perpetrators,  not  the  con¬ 
spirators,  are  liable  to  death  penalty. 

(154)  :  “In  case  of  incest  of  father  and  daughter,  he  is  pun¬ 
ished  with  exile.”  The  Pentateuch  inflicts  death  on  both. 

(155)  :  “If  with  daughter-in-law,  he  is  tied  and  thrown  into 
the  water.  The  woman  is  excused,  being  subject  to  the  author¬ 
ity  of  the  father-in-law.”  Mosaism  accepts  no  such  excuse. 

(157)  :  “That  of  mother  and  son  is  punished  with  fire-death 
of  both,  both  being  responsible.” 

(158)  :  “That  of  stepmother  and  son;  he  is  punished  with 
exile  from  the  parental  house.  She  is  condoned  as  a  depend¬ 
ent.”  The  Pentateuch  punishes  both  alike,  woman  being  re¬ 
sponsible,  just  as  man. 

(162)  :  “The  dower  of  a  dead  wife  belongs  to  her  sons  (not 
her  parents).”  The  same  in  Rabbinical  law. 

(167)  :  “A  man  with  several  wives,  and  hence  several  sets  of 
children,  entails  his  property  alike  and  equally  to  all  his  chil¬ 
dren  ;  only  the  portions  of  their  respective  mothers  belong  to  the 
mothers’  children,  respectively.”  That  is  also  Rabbinical  view. 

(168)  :  “A  father  desiring  to  oust  his  son  from  his  inher¬ 
itance  shall  submit  his  reasons  thereto  to  the  judge,  who  shall 
alone  decide  and  pronounce  the  verdict,  whether  these  reasons 
are  sufficient  or  not.”  This  is  very  original  and  very  interesting. 
The  Rabbis  simply  deprecate  disinheriting  a  son.  The  Penta¬ 
teuch  sends  parents  complaining  of  their  bad  sons  to  the  judge, 
(see  above). 

169)  :  “Even  if  the  guilt  be  grave,  it  should  be  condoned 
the  first  time ;  not  a  second  time.” 

(170)  :  “The  sons  from  a  maid-servant,  if  expressly  called 
‘sons’  by  the  father,  are  his  legitimate  heirs,  at  par  with  the  sons 


LAWS  ON  THE  STELA  OF  HAMMURABI. 


183 


of  the  legitimate  wife.  Only  the  (first-born  ?)  son  of  the  legiti¬ 
mate  wife  chooses  first  his  share.  The  rest  is  equally  divided 
among  the  sons  of  both  the  women.”  This  is  remarkably  lib¬ 
eral  ;  of  course,  there  was  then  no  color-line  prevalent  and  no 
race  question  involved  in  the  case.  It  was  really  but  a  question 
of  poor  and  rich,  free  and  unfree,  mothers.  The  Rabbinical 
Code  declares  in  every  case  all  the  sons  of  the  same  father  his 
equal  heirs,  the  first-born  alone  to  have  a  double  share,  a  rem¬ 
nant  of  ancient  aristocracy. 

(175)  :  “A  slave  marrying  a  free  woman,  their  children  are 
free-born ;  the  master  of  the  slave  can  raise  no  claim  upon 
them.”  In  all  mixed  marriages  the  Talmudical  law  gives  the 
children  the  status  of  the  mother. 

(183)  :  “The  daughter  of  a  secondary  wife  who  had  received 
a  marriage  portion  and  been  legally  married  to  a  man,  can  raise 
no  further  claim  on  paternal  inheritance.”  The  same  is  the 
Mosaic  and  the  Rabbinical  view :  The  sons  inherit  and  the 
daughters  are  married,  and  no  discrimination  concerning  their 
mothers. 

(184)  :  “If  she  has  received  no  portion  and  has  got  no  hus¬ 
band,  the  brothers  shall  endow  and  marry  her  after  the  father’s 
death,  according  to  the  amount  inherited  from  him.”  Just  so 
enacts  the  Talmud.  In  all  these  statements  the  Talmudical  and 
the  Babylonian  law  coincide. 

(195)  :  “If  a  son  beats  his  father,  his  hands  shall  be  cut  off.” 
Mosaism  sets  the  penalty  of  death  even  on  mere  gross  insult 
or  gross  disobedience.  Still,  the  Rabbinical  law  practically  dis¬ 
established  it,  as  nearly  all  capital  punishments,  by  its  many 
technical  requirements,  as  witnesses,  warning  etc. 

(196)  :  “Who  destroys  the  eye  of  another,  his  eye  shall  be 
destroyed.”  So  Mosaism,  the  principle  of  talion.  But  Rab¬ 
binical  tradition  ordains  practically  a  money  compensation. 

(197)  :  “Who  breaks  the  bone  of  another  his  bone  shall  be 
broken.”  Mosaism  prescribes  the  same ;  tradition  exacts  money 
compensation,  a  later  development. 

(199)  :  “When  one  destroys  the  eye  or  the  bone  of  a  slave, 
he  must  pay  half  of  the  latter’s  purchase  price”  (to  the  master  )  ; 


184 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


no  atonement  for  the  slave.  Mosaism  grants  him  his  liberty  for 
that  maltreatment. 

(200)  :  “The  same  is  tooth  for  tooth  of  a  free-born;  of  a 
pauper  or  slave  is  one-third  of  a  mine  in  silver”  (to  the  master). 
The  Code  discriminates  between  an  equal,  a  poor  man  and  a 
slave  concerning  assault  and  battery. 

(202)  :  “Beating  a  person  of  a  higher  rank  is  punished  with 
ox-hide  blows.”  The  Mosaic  Law  knows  no  such  discrimina¬ 
tion.  All  the  citizens  are  equal  before  the  law,  even  the  non- 
Jewish  bondsman  is  still  a  human  being  and  protected  from  in¬ 
jury;  he  gains  his  liberty  when  his  master  abuses  his  dominical 
rights. 

(203)  :  “Beating  a  minor  is  punished  with  one  mine  of  sil¬ 
ver.”  The  Rabbis  used  no  lex  talionis ;  they  substituted  a 
money  compensation  for  hurt  in  limb ;  so  they  interpreted  “Eye 
for  eye,  tooth  for  tooth.”  Beating  a  pauper-minor  costs  ten 
shekels  of  silver ;  such  was  the  Babylonian  hierarchy. 

(205)  :  “A  slave  beating  a  freeman-minor  shall  have  his  ear 
cut  off.”  Neither  Thora  nor  Talmud  know  of  such  cruel  punish¬ 
ments  and  such  discriminations.  That  savors  of  conquest  and 
constant  suppression  of  social  upheavals  by  cruel  punishments. 

(206)  :  “Beating  another  in  a  fight,  one  shall  swear  that  it 
was  done  unintentionally  and  pay  the  physician’s  fee;”  and  no 
more !  Rather  a  lame  excuse  !  good  for  Sodom. 

(207)  :  “If  the  beaten  person  dies  (from  the  blow),  one- 
half  a  mine  in  silver  is  the  fine.” 

Here  we  see  the  Babylonian  lex  talionis-.  “Eye  for  eye  and 
tooth  for  tooth,”  applied  only  among  social  equals.  The  three¬ 
fold  distinction  between  a  free-born,  a  liberated  man,  or  pauper 
and  a  slave,  is  severely  kept  up.  That  is  the  principle  of  aristoc¬ 
racy  and  conquest.  Hammurabi  was  the  conqueror  af  Babylon, 
Moses  was  the  liberator  of  Israel ;  therefore  is  the  Mosaic  lex 
talionis  in  Judaea  unexceptional  and  democratic,  life  for  life  and 
hurt  for  hurt;  killing  even  a  slave  incurred  the  death  punish¬ 
ment.  A  heathen-born  slave  harmed  in  tooth  or  limb  goes  free. 
A  Jewish  slave  is  a  full  citizen;  that  is  infinitely  more  liberal1 

•II.  M.  21.24— III.  M.  24.20— V.  M.  19.21— Matth.  5.38. 


LAWS  ON  THE  STELA  OF  HAMMURABI. 


185 


than  the  Babylonian  statute.  The  one  is  the  Code  of  a  liber¬ 
ator  anxious  for  his  entire  people;  the  other  is  the  law  of  a 
conqueror,  anxious  for  his  conquest  and  his  conquering  clan  in 
arms  against  the  subjugated  people. 

(209)  :  ‘‘Beating  a  woman  that  she  loses  her  fetus,  entails 
ten  shekels  fine.” 

(210-214)  :  “But  if  the  woman,  too,  dies  from  the  injury, 
then  the  daughter  of  the  slayer  shall  be  killed.”  Here  is  the 
barbarous  family  solidarity,  abolished  by  Mosaism.  “If  she  is 
but  a  pauper  woman,  he  pays  one-half  of  a  mine  in  silver,  if  she 
dies ;  if  only  her  fetus  die,  he  pays  five  shekel  silver.  Smiting 
a  slave-woman’s  fetus  costs  two  shekels ;  killing  herself  costs  one- 
third  of  a  mine  silver.” 

Here  is  a  most  curious  piece  of  legislation !  Since  a  woman 
was  deemed  to  be  inferior  in  money  value  to  a  man,  hence,  not 
the  male  murderer,  but  his  innocent  daughter  was  to  die  in  expi¬ 
ation,  and  this  was  according  to  the  barbarous  principles  of 
talion  and  of  family  solidarity.  Here  is  the  lex  talionis  pushed 
ad  absurdum.  Hot  the  murderer,  but  his  proxy;  not  the  guilty 
man,  but  a  woman,  his  innocent  daughter,  dies  for  the  murder  of 
a  woman !  That  reminds  of  that  village  community  which,  in 
expiation  of  a  murder,  offered  an  innocent  tailor  to  be  hanged, 
in  place  of  the  guilty  smith,  because  the  community  had  several 
tailors  and  but  one  smith ;  hence  it  could  rather  spare  the  tailor 
(for  the  gallows)  than  the  smith.  The  Talmud-Sanhedrin  re¬ 
members  many  monstrosities  about  the  justice  of  Sodom  and  Go¬ 
morrah.  Our  paragraphs,  210  to  214,  are  of  that  pattern. 

(218)  :  “If  a  physician,  operating  with  the  knife,  kills  the 
patient  or  destroys  his  eye,  he  shall  have  his  hands  cut  off.”  A 
timely  warning  for  surgeons  ! 

(219)  :  “If  the  patient  is  a  slave,  the  physician  must  resti¬ 
tute  another  slave.” 

(220)  :  “If  he  destroys  his  eye,  he  must  pay  half  his  pur¬ 
chase  price”  (to  the  master). 

(229)  :  “If  an  architect  builds  a  house,  which  collapses  and 
kills  the  house  owner,  the  architect  shall  be  killed.”  Here  is  a 
crude  lex  talionis  observed;  but  is  it  just  and  wise? 


186 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


(230)  :  “If  it  kills  the  son  of  the  master,  the  son  of  the  arch¬ 
itect  shall  be  killed.”  Here  again  is  the  barbarous  principle  of 
family  solidarity,  repudiated  by  Mosaism,  which  declares : 
“Every  one  dies  for  his  own  sin.” 

(231)  :  “If  it  killed  a  slave,  he  must  restitute  another  slave.” 

(232)  :  “If  it  damaged  goods,  he  must  pay  from  his  own 
property  and  moreover  rebuild  the  collapsed  structure.”  All  bad 
work  is  answerable  and  to  be  made  good  by  the  negligent,  incapa¬ 
ble  or  unlucky  worker  or  enterprenor.  For  good  services  the 
physician,  architect,  workman  etc.  must  be  paid  (Secs. 268- 
274),  and  prices  are  specified.”  The  Pentateuch  is  silent  on 
that  leaving  it  to  the  offer  and  demand  principle ;  maybe  also  be¬ 
cause  in  primitive,  humble  social  conditions  every  farmer  was 
his  own  physician,  builder  etc.,  pointing  to  the  hoary  age  of  the 
Law. 

(245)  :  “If  anyone  hires  an  ox  and  kills  or  damages  him  by 
bad  treatment  or  hard  blows,  he  must  restitute  ox  for  ox.”  The 
lex  talionis  is  applied  alike  to  citizen,  brute  and  slave. 

(250)  :  “If  an  ox  kills  a  man  in  the  street,  his  master  is 
not  responsible  for  it.”  Such  was  Mosaic  Law,  too. 

(251)  :  “If  the  ox  be  (habitually)  a  goring  one,  and  his  mas¬ 
ter,  though  forewarned,  still  neglected  to  take  care  and  provide 
against  that,  he  shall  pay  half  a  mine  in  silver.”  The  Mosaic 
Law  states  death  or  a  redeeming  fine  (see  Baba  Qama,  101. a). 
The  general  legal  principles  were,  no  doubt,  familiar  to  the  Tal¬ 
mudists,  but  they  were  governed  by  Mosaic  views,  not  Baby¬ 
lonian  ones. 

(253)  :  “If  any  one  hires  a  man  for  field-work  and  he  steals 
grain  or  plants  therefrom,  his  hands  shall  be  cut  off.”  Here  is 
punishment  in  body  for  hurt  in  purse.  Mosaism,  democracy,  re¬ 
jects  such  enactments.  In  Babylon  the  land  owners  were  of  the 
conquering  class,  and  the  laborers  of  the  subjugated  one;  here 
the  lawgiver  cared  for  the  first  only.  Strong  parallels  one  finds 
in  the  feudal  agrarian  enactments  of  the  Barons. 

Even  the  Roman  Codes  and  the  Middle  Ages  legislations  did 
not  reach  the  Mosaic,  democratic  justice.  Until  the  Code  Na- 

Fluegel’s  “Humanity,  Benevolence  and  Charity  of  the  Pentateuch.” 


LAWS  ON  THE  STELA  OF  HAMMURABI. 


187 


poleon,  human  life  was  less  protected  than  property,  and  bodily 
punishment  was  entailed  for  hurt  in  purse.  Stealing  was  fel¬ 
ony,  punished  with  death.  In  recent  times  still,  robbery  of  ten 
cents’  worth  on  the  road  entailed  death  on  the  gallows.  In  Eng¬ 
land,  Austria,  Russia  and  America  this  is  still  Common  Law, 
I  hear,  though  happily  not  carried  out.  A  humane  English 
Cardinal,  not  long  ago,  propounded  that  a  poor,  hungry  man 
stealing  a  loaf  of  bread  should  not  be  punished.  That  feeling 
was  an  echo  from  Mosaism.  Legitimacy  deemed  it  a  paradox 
and  a  fallacy.  The  Mosaic  Law  states  that  a  thief,  unable  to 
make  good  his  theft,  shall  work  not  over  six  years,  in  payment 
of  the  damage  wrought.  After  six  years’  work  he  is  restored  to 
liberty  and  all  the  citizen’s  rights.  His  family  could  never  be 
attainted.  Crime  is  personal,  timely,  not  transferable,  never 
solidary,  and  not  eternally  blasting.  The  criminal,  expiating 
his  crime,  was  again  a  citizen  and  a  brother.  Here  is  the  supe¬ 
riority  of  the  Mosaic  Code  over  all  those  of  antiquity,  down  to 
the  present  times.  For  that  spirit  of  true  humanity  and  benevo¬ 
lence  it  became  the  pattern  of  the  present  incipient,  more  liberal 
legislations.  That  is  the  spirit  wafting  from  the  Moriah  Mount, 
gradually  permeating  and  vivifying  the  great  legislating  assem¬ 
blies  of  the  globe,  and  tending  to  make  mankind  feel  as  one  fam¬ 
ily,  governed  by  one  interest  and  one  law. 

(265)  :  “If  a  shepherd  entrusted  with  keeping  cattle  or 
sheep,  is  convicted  of  defrauding  the  owner,  he  shall  pay  him 
10  times  the  price  of  the  stolen  goods.”  Mosaism  reduced  it  to 
two  and  five  fold. 

(266)  :  “If  by  the  will  of  the  gods  (natural  causation)  or 
beasts  of  prey  damage  arises  in  the  flock,  the  shepherd  shall 
swear  that  he  is  innocent,  and  the  owner  must  bear  the  loss.” 
This  is  also  the  Rabbinical  Law ;  an  oath  purges  the  hired  man. 

(282)  :  “If  a  slave  tells  his  master:  Thou  art  not  my  mas¬ 
ter,  his  master  shall  prove  his  ownership  and  cut  off  his  ear.” 
This  is  again  a  piece  of  barbarism,  savoring  of  cruelty  and  fear, 
of  aristocracy,  conquest  and  enslavement,  the  leading  features  of 
conquered  Babylonia. 


188 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


The  Stela  with  the  Hammurabian  Laws  winds  up  with  most 
fulsome  praises  and  glowing  glorifications  of  the  King;  he  is 
there  proclaimed  to  be  backed  by  all  the  hundred  gods  and  god¬ 
desses  of  heaven,  earth  and  sea ;  and  closes  with  a  most  ferocious 
imprecation  and  a  horrifying  ban  against  whomsoever  who 
would  dare  in  future  to  abolish  or  change  thatCode  of  2250B.C. 

HammurabTs  Code  Contrasted  with  Mosaic  Legislation. 

The  code  just  epitomized,  we  have  seen,  is  assumed  to  have 
been  promulgated  by  Hammurabi,  King  of  Babylon,  of  about 
2250  B.  C.,  engraven  on  a  Stela  over  a  basalt  pillar  over  seven 
feet  high,  in  cuneiform  script,  containing  282  sections,  and  put 
up  at  first  in  the  Temple  of  Bel  Merodach,  at  Babylon,  later 
carried  away  to  Sippara  etc.  It  was  discovered  and  excavated 
by  M.  de  Morgan  at  Susa,  an  ancient  capital  of  Persia,  in  the 
winter  of  1901-1902,  copied  and  translated.  Five  of  the  col¬ 
umns  with  sections  65-100  have  been  erased  by  a  later  king  and 
are  missing.  The  lawgiver  claims  that  his  code  intends  to  se¬ 
cure  justice  to  every  one,  and  that  it  was  dictated  to  him  person¬ 
ally  by  the  gods.  But  apparently  it  has  a  much  older  back¬ 
ground  than  Hammurabi’s  time.  The  bas-relief  of  the  pillar 
represents  the  god  Bel  dictating  the  sections  to  his  favorite,  the 
inspired  King. 

Curious,  the  very  first  paragraphs  of  the  Code  are  devoted 
to  witchcraft  and  enchantment,  distinguishing  if  honest  or  not ! 
The  person  charged  with  witchcraft  is  to  submit  to  an  ordeal 
of  water  for  verification !  Here  is  a  striking  contrast  to  the 
Mosaic  Law,  which  treats  witchcraft  but  incidentally  and  con¬ 
temptuously  as  a  dangerous  pagan  fraud  in  all  cases,  and  not 
asking  for  any  further  impossible  proof :  All  witchcraft  is  a  lie, 
abominable,  most  dangerous  to  society,  and  hence  criminally  to 
be  punished ;  an  abomination  to  Ihvh  and  men,  to  be  summarily 
expelled  from  the  country.1  That  the  Stela  opens  with  that, 

'The  Talmud  reports  that  Simon,  son  of  Shetah,  once  had  a  crowd  of 
witches  executed  in  one  day,  but  that  is  mere  legend.  According  to  th® 
c  iminal  procedure  of  the  Rabbis,  they  could  not  be  convicted  nor  capitally 
punteh®^  0,1  su®h  grounds,  and  Simon  kept  strictly  within  the  law. 


CUMULATIVE  ACCOUNTABILITY. 


189 


with  such  prominence,  gives  it  several  detailed  sections,  distin¬ 
guishes  between  true  and  false  charms,  ban  and  enchantment, 
and  submits  its  victim  to  imminent  death  that  shows  saliently 
the  baneful  superstition  of  those  times  and  that  country,  not 
known  to  Judaea. 

Cumulative  Accountability. 

The  responsibility  of  the  contracting  parties  proves  again  the 
inferiority  of  the  Babylonian  Code  to  the  Sinai  one.  This  one 
states  repeatedly  and  as  a  leading  legal  axiom,  that :  The  parents 
shall  not  die  for  the  guilt  of  the  children,  nor  the  children  for 
the  guilt  of  the  parents ;  every  one  shall  die  for  his  own  sin.1  In 
the  entire  legal  procedure  of  the  Pentateuch  not  a  single  in¬ 
stance  can  be  found  in  violation  of  that  principle.  Responsi¬ 
bility  to  man  before  human  justice  is  strictly  personal;  neither 
the  parents  and  the  wife,  nor  the  children,  relations  and  collat¬ 
erals  are  accountable  for  the  deed  of  the  accused  one.  Otherwise 
is  Hammurabi’s  law;  responsibility  and  punishment  is  entailed 
upon  the  entire  relationship :  “If  an  architect  builds  a  house 
that  collapses  and  kills  the  owner,  the  architect  is  to  be  put  to 
death.  But  if  the  owner’s  son  is  killed,  then  the  architect’s  son 
is  to  suffer  death.”  Responsibility  of  proxy  has  been  retained, 
too,  by  the  Roman  Twelve  Tables  and  by  the  Codex  Justinianus, 
and  hence  by  nearly  all  the  Middle  Age  codicees.  The  modern 
laws,  begun  with  the  enlightened  Code  Napoleon,  gave  up  that 
barbarism.  Previously  and  at  all  times  tyrants,  imperial  and 
ecclesiastical,  involved  the  entire  family  of  the  offender  in  his 
ruin,  anxious  to  silence  and  secure  oblivion  to  themselves  and  to 
their  usurpations  by  such  cumulative  responsibility,  thus  ex- 
tirminating  the  entire  race  of  the  offender.  The  Mosaic  Law 
alone  protested  against  such  tyranny  and  declared:  No  one  shall 
suffer  for  the  (assumed  or  real)  guilt  of  another.  The  Deca¬ 
logue  extends,  morally,  responsibility  to  the  third  and  fourth 
generation,  and  divine  mercy  to  thousands  of  generations,  just 
as  it  is  daily  verified  in  nature  and  in  history ;  but  that  does  not 

JThe  parents  shall  not  die  for  the  children’s  sake,  nor  the  children  for 
the  parents’.  Every  one  dies  for  his  own  guilt.”  (Y  M.,  24.15.) 


190  HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 

militate  against  the  present  legal  case,  as  enlarged  upon  here ; 
God  punishes  and  rewards  collaterals,  too ;  not  so  the  human 
judge,1  who  determines  upon  each  case  singly;  God  alone  can 
calculate  the  amount  of  solidarity  of  the  social  units  respective¬ 
ly;  the  judge  cannot. 

The  Lex  Talionis  There. 

The  lex  talionis,  or  law  of  retaliation,  is  in  the  Babylonian 
Code  the  all-pervading,  fundamental,  legal  principle,  by  far 
more  than  is  the  Biblical  one,  “Eye  for  eye  and  tooth  for  tooth,” 
which  axiom  we  find  literally  in  both  these  legislations.  Still, 
there  is  an  important  difference,  viz,  it  is  diversely  applied. 
Sentimentalists  have  much  polemized  against  Mosaism  on  that 
account,  declaiming  that  they  want  to  have  justice  ever  tempered 
with  mercy,  forgetting  that  to  be  merciful  to  the  assailant  is  to 
be  merciless  to  the  victim.  Even  more :  It  is  to  sacrifice  the  wel¬ 
fare  of  society  in  order  to  screen  a  criminal  from  due  punish¬ 
ment.  The  law  of  retaliation  is  a  law  of  nature,  and  hence  of 
society.  But  society  punishes  crime  not  from  mere  desire  of  re¬ 
venge,  but  of  self-protection,  and  its  just  and  equitable  measure 
is  the  lex  talionis.  How,  consider:  The  principle  of  talion  is  in 
the  Mosaic  Code  really  meant  to  be  carried  out:  Eye  for  eye, 
hand  for  hand  etc.  The  Law  asks  not  whose  hand  was  injured 
and  whose  hand  did  the  injury.  Ho!  one  person  is  just  as  good 
as  another  person,  and  one’s  hand  or  foot  values  just  as  much 
as  another’s  hand  or  foot.  That  means  equality  of  all,  liberty 
for  all,  equal  justice  to  all.  That  is  Mosaic  democracy.  Hot 
so  is  Hammurabi’s  law  of  retaliation:  If  one,  socially  inferior, 
kills  or  injures  a  superior  (of  the  conquering  race,  for  the  Ca- 
naanites  subjugated  the  native  Babylonians  as  the  Anglo-Saxons 
did  the  Britons,  or  the  Hormans  did  these  and  the  aborigines), 
then  there  is  one  measure  of  punishment;  if  a  superior  kills  or 
injures  one  of  an  inferior  social  stratum,  then  the  crime  and 
the  punishment  are  weighed  in  other  scales!  Here  is  no  justice, 
no  lex  talionis,  no  equity !  Because  the  law  discriminates  be¬ 
tween  classes  and  masses,  between  the  races,  between  conquerors 


'See  Exod.,  20.5-6. 


THE  OATH. 


191 


and  conquered.  “Eye  for  eye  and  tooth  for  tooth,”  is  thus  not 
carried  out.  Here  is  aristocracy,  not  democracy ;  here  is  a  con¬ 
queror  and  his  horde  that  dictate  to  the  subjugated  masses. 
What  they  have  gained  by  the  bandit-sword  of  the  condottieri, 
the  Robber-Baron,  they  desired  to  hold  and  perpetuate  by  the 
shameless  rhetoric  and  the  pettifogging  trickery  of  the  lawyer. 
As  remarked  above,  Mosaism  legislated  for  a  united  people,  the 
comparatively  few  strangers  were  assimilated,  and  the  remnant 
of  the  not  exterminated  natives  were  treated  justly,  even  ten¬ 
derly.  They  were  all  free  and  equal,  and  justice  was  to  be 
meted  out  alike  to  them.  Hence  “Eye  for  eye  and  tooth  for 
tooth,”  viz,  legal  equality,  was  a  fact,  the  scale  of  justice.  Ham¬ 
murabi,  too,  put  that  up  as  his  principle,  in  theory,  but  he 
acted  not  always  up  to  it.  There  were  two  rights,  because  two 
peoples,  hence  two  scales  of  j  ustice ;  and  he  took  care  that  his 
party  should  domineer  as  long  as  he  could  help  it  by  his  code 
of  laws,  just  as  by  his  victorious  sword. 

The  Oath  There. 

The  Babylonian  code  appealed  most  frequently  to  the  testi¬ 
mony  of  a  judicial  oath.  We  today,  too,  unfortunately,  have 
the  litigants  and  witnesses  swear  on  the  Bible,  but  we  have 
small  trust  in  the  oath.  We  ask  for  substantial  proofs ;  the 
oath  is  a  sort  of  ordalia,  a  remnant  of  old  barbarism,  as  are  duels 
and  battles.  The  plain  fact  is,  whosoever  lies,  steals,  defrauds, 
will  even  the  more  easily  perjure  himself.  Our  judges  know 
very  well  that  the  oath  is  valueless,  but  they  go  perfunctorily 
through  the  motions.  The  honest  will  not  lie,  and  the  dishonest 
will  lie  and  swear  to  it.  The  Babylonian  Code  administered 
very  frequently  an  oath  to  the  litigants  and  took  it  as  a  full 
proof ;  that  is  astonishing !  If  we  could  read  between  the  lines 
of  that  Stela,  we  would  find  that  the  oath  was  but  a  subterfuge, 
a  spurious  trick,  how  to  circumvent  and  bend  public  justice.  I 
justly  suspect  the  judges  there  ever  gave  the  oath  to  the  domi¬ 
nant  caste  and  the  ordeal  to  the  subjugated  one.  The  Mosaic 
Code  pretty  seldom  adjudicates  an  oath  to  a  litigant,  and  only 
in  extreme  cases  where  no  other  proof  and  no  witnesses  are  pos¬ 
sible,  and  only  when  there  is  a  certain  presumption  that  the  oath 


192 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


is  correct,  a  certain  amount  of  probability,  or  what  we  would 
term,  circumstantial  evidence,  and  even  then  the  rabbinical  in¬ 
terpretation  reduced  it  to  a  half-testimony,  to  a  mere  shadow. 
Where  the  Babylonian  Code  relies  on  the  oath,  the  Rabbinical 
one  bluntly  declares :  “Whosoever  will  get  out  something  held 
by  his  neighbor  must  bring  testimony,”  prove  it,  not  swear.1 

Business  Transactions. 

All  business  transactions  must  be  done  in  writing,  the  books 
must  record  it,  and  only  a  contract,  an  obligatory  note,  a  receipt, 
an  order  in  writing,  is  legal  evidence.  That  is  business-like,  to 
the  point  and,  no  doubt,  hails  from  Canaan  and  Phoenicia,  the 
classical  and  shrewd  merchants  of  Tyre  and  Sidon.  But  how 
that  straightforward  axiom  could  square  with  the  proof  of  an 
oath  and  an  ordeal  I  cannot  imagine.  Here  was  again  the 
happy  sphere  of  the  “fides  punica and  the  Babylonian  pettifog¬ 
ger.  The  Mosaic  Law  ever  insists  on  witnesses,2  apparently  be¬ 
cause  calculated  for  an  agricultural,  uncommercial  people,  less 
proverbial  for  Phoenician  lying  than  Carthage  and  Tyre.  The 
Talmudical  law  admits  both,  the  written  testimony  and  by  wit¬ 
nesses  ;  in  important  cases,  as  marriage  and  divorce,  it  required 
both. 

The  relation  of  employer  and  employee,  capitalist,  lender  and 
debtor,  principal  and  agent,  are  carefully  prescribed  and,  as  far 
as  I  can  guess,  ever  giving  the  advantage  to  the  ruling,  the 
stronger,  party.  Land-tenure  is  conditioned  on  cultivation  and 
occupation  of  the  ground ;  neglecting  a  farm  is  sufficient  cause 
for  forfeiting  it.  AVomen  holding  disorderly  premises,  or  fre¬ 
quenting  drinking  establishments,  were  criminally  punished. 
The  Biblical  Code  rigidly  prohibits  the  first;  the  latter  is  un¬ 
heard  of  in  the  Hebraic  nationality. 

Domestic  Laws. 

The  position  of  woman  in  Babylonia,  Egypt  and  Judsea  was 
good,  her  status  was  honorable,  her  rights  guaranteed  and  the 

hfrtnn  vSy  vunc  toviton  is  Rabbinic  axiom. 

2V.  M.,  17.6—19.15  121  Dip'  D'ly  'Q  b]} 


DOMESTIC  LAWS. 


193 


future  of  her  children  secured.  In  all  three  countries  polygamy 
seems  not  to  be  legally  prohibited,  but  de  facto ,  socially,  morally 
discouraged,  and  tolerated  only  as  a  rare  exception,  in  cases  of 
barrenness  or  chronic  sickness  of  the  legitimate  wife.  Even  then 
she  could  not  be  dismissed,  but  was  to  be  kept  and  supported  in 
the  house.  Even  then  the  hand-maid  taking  her  place  was  to 
pay  her  respect  and  acknowledge  her  superior  wifely  rank,  or 
bear  punishment.  That  explains  the  situation  of  (I  M.,  16) 
Abraham,  Sara  and  Hagar.  Marriage  was  by  contract,  written 
and  certified,  and  a  dower  stipulated,  or  null  and  void,  just  as  in 
the  Rabbinical  law.  Causes  for  divorce  are  not  specified,  still 
the  repudiated  wife,  when  guiltless  was  to  be  provided  for. 
There  can  be  borne  out  a  certain  parallelism  between  the  Baby¬ 
lonian  and  the  Rabbinical  marriage  and  divorce  provisions.  The 
view  of  the  Hillelites,  not  of  the  Shammaites,  appears  to  be  that 
of  Hammurabi’s  Code.  Disrespect  to  a  parent  and  goring  by 
an  ox  is  mentioned  there,  too,  but  otherwise  treated  than  in  the 
Mosaic  one.  That  bad  architects  and  bad  physicians  are  pun¬ 
ished  for  bad  services,  and  according  to  the  axiom  of  the  lex 
talionis,  is  much  to  the  point ;  the  luckless  surgeon  has  his  hands 
cut  off  and  the  luckless  architect  shares  the  fate  of  his  victim¬ 
ized  client. 

Slavery. 

The  harshest  phase  of  the  Babylonian  Code  is  its  enactments 
regulating  slavery.  Here  we  see  the  immense  distance  between 
the  polytheistic  morality  and  the  monotheistic  one.  The  relation 
between  the  strong  and  the  weak,  rich  and  poor  master  and 
slave,  native  and  stranger,  the  paupers,  especially  the  widows 
and  orphans,  are  entirely  passed  in  silence,  or  they  are  put  down 
as  a  pauper-mass,  a  mob,  as  if  condemned  to  eternal  drudgery 
and  wretchedness,  as  natural  pariahs,  and  by  all  the  legal  institu¬ 
tions  simply  sacrificed  to  the  upper  classes.  Ho  laws  of  charity 
and  benevolence,  no  spark  of  solidarity  and  altruism  to  mitigate 
misfortune  or  social  injustice !  Hot  a  word  to  recommend  them, 
provide,  uplift,  protect  them.  The  slave  offending  the  mas¬ 
ter  only  with  a  word  has  his  ear  cut  off.  If  running  away,  he 
is  to  be  brought  back  by  force,  for  a  reward,  to  the  captor,  and 


194 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


he  is  at  the  absolute  mercy  of  the  master,  without  any  security 
of  life  and  limb  or  humane  treatment.  He,  his  wife  and  child 
are  the  master’s  chattel.  Small  larceny  by  a  laborer  is  punished 
with  cutting  off  his  hand.  Hot  a  word  about  liberating  the 
slave,  or  his  fair  treatment,  or  mercy  for  or  sparing  the  brute. 
The  slave,  the  ox  and  the  chattels  are  on  the  same  level,  the 
property,  absolutely,  of  the  master. 

It  is  Mosaism  that  ordained  a  Sabbath-day,  “to  the  end  that 
thy  ox,  thy  slave  and  thy  stranger  shall  rest  and  recuperate” 
(II  M.,  23.12,  V  M.,  5.14).  The  same  mean  the  holidays. 
If,  as  claimed  by  some  Orientalists,  the  word  Sabbath  is  to  be 
found  in  Babylonian  records,  it  surely  meant  a  day  of  jollifica¬ 
tion  for  the  rich,  and  of  double  drudgery  for  the  dependents. 
Such  days  of  such  sympathy  and  charity  alone  prove  the  hu¬ 
manitarian  import  and  the  superiority  of  a  noble  legislation  and 
its  divine  inspiration.  The  Babylonian  Stela  makes  for  con¬ 
quest,  dominion  and  enslavement.  The  Sinai  Code  for  enfran¬ 
chisement,  individual,  social  and  moral  elevation,  and  that  is 
its  seal  of  divinity.  The  lack  of  charity  and  altruism  in  the 
Oriental  code  is  at  first  the  outcome  of  polytheism,  with  its  local 
gods,  the  many  races  and  various  origins,  rights  and  interests.  It 
is  next  and  saliently  the  characteristic  of  a  code  imposed  by  a 
conqueror  upon  the  conquered,  with  the  purpose  not  expressed 
in  words,  but  in  acts,  to  be  clearly  read  between  the  lines,  that 
it  aims  at  perpetuating  conquest  and  subjugation,  at  legalizing, 
sanctioning  and  strengthening  the  tight  grasp  of  the  masters  over 
the  slaves,  and  not  to  give  the  latter  any  chance  of  recuperating 
and  obtaining  their  independence.  Ho  Sabbath  and  no  holiday 
for  the  slave  and  the  poor;  diametrically  the  antithesis  of  the 
Mosaic  legislation,  enacted  for  the  people,  a  homogeneous  de¬ 
mocracy. 

After  this  short  analysis  we  deem  it  unnecessary  to  enlarge 
and  emphasize  any  further  upon  our  theme,  and  discuss  the  in¬ 
fluence  on,  if  any,  and  the  relation  of  that  oldest  Oriental  Code 
to  the  Sinai  one ;  its  infinite  superiority  and  genuineness  are  evi¬ 
dent. 


SLAVERY. 


195 


There  can  no  doubt  be  entertained  that  we  have  there  before 
us  the  statute-book  of  a  king  and  a  conqueror,  who  desired  to 
secure  by  law,  stability  and  order  what  be  bad  gained  by  bis 
arms.  His  aim  was  the  safety  of  bis  dominion  and  bis  empire, 
by  establishing  order  and  security  in  the  state,  obedience  to  the 
chief  and  the  law  and  political  stability.  He  again  aimed,  from 
personal  motives,  at  securing  the  preponderance  of  bis  own 
clan  and  bis  army,  over  the  subjugated  people.  His  laws  in 
every  instance  tended  towards  that  partial  object,  viz :  To  main¬ 
tain  bis  authority  by  the  policy  of  “divide  et  impera”  hence  to 
perpetuate  and  solidify  the  distinction  between  the  dominant 
classes  and  the  subject  masses.  On  the  contrary  the  Mosaic  Code 
had  but  one  people  in  view,  the  Bene-Israel ;  whilst  the  native 
Canaanites  are  presumed  there  to  be  destroyed,  driven  out  of 
the  land  or  assimilated  and  incorporated.  They  are  therefore 
treated  without  jealousy  or  any  discrimination,  and  rather  sym¬ 
pathetically  recommended  to  the  benevolence  and  the  protection 
of  the  law,  the  government  and  the  one  and  integral  homogenous 
people,  Israel,  alone  occupying  and  owning  the  land,  once  tilled 
by  their  sires  and  fathers  and  entailed  on  them  by  inherited 
right  and  by  arms,  the  right  of  conquest. 

Hot  a  single  time  do  we  find  in  the  Babylonian  Stela  a  word 
of  sympathy  and  endearment  by  the  lawgiver  towards  his  wards, 
the  people.  It  is  a  conqueror  who  pines  for  rest,  security  and 
stability,  waging  the  war  of  fire,  water  and  sword,  drowning 
and  maiming  against  whomsoever  who  would  dare  disturb  him 
in  his  martial  acquisitions.  Cunningly  and  naturally,  he  ever 
gave  the  advantage  to  his  own  clan  and  army,  who  helped  him  to 
conquer  and  retain  the  land.  The  Judaean,  Mosaic  Lawgiver 
ever  appeals  to  the  good  fellow-feeling  of  his  people,  addressing 
them  as  “The  children  of  thy  people,  thy  friends,  brethren  and 
fellow-men.”1  “Let  thy  brother  live  by  thee,”  “Be  afraid  of 
God,”  “God  will  bless  thee  for  being  kind  and  sympathetic  to 
him.”  Hammurabi  bids  and  commands  by  the  authority  of  his 
sword,  “Suprema  lex  regis  voluntas !”  Even  the  100  gods  are 

'Q'nbs  -pirn  dnti  /-py 'm  ,“|in  ,^»y  ’ja 


196 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


merely  his  tools  and  his  satellites.  It  is  but  a  cunning  conde¬ 
scension  on  his  part  when  he  puts  forward  the  hypocritical  claim 
to  be  their  agent.  As  Timoleon,  the  Corinthian  leader,  so  Ham¬ 
murabi,  when  he  heard  his  praises  chanted  by  his  Canaanite 
companions,  could  say  that  he  is  thankful  for  all  those  brilliant 
deeds  he  had  achieved  to  the  gods  alone,  who,  since  they  wanted 
to  render  his  clan  great,  they  had  made  him  such  a  valiant 
leader.1 

On  the  whole,  the  Canaan-Babylonian  relations  to  each  other 
is  similar  to  that  of  the  Teutonic  conquering  invaders  to  the  Ho¬ 
mans,  or  that  of  the  Anglo-Saxons  to  the  Celts,  or  that  of  the 
ISTormans  to  the  subjugated  Anglo-Saxons  and  aborigines. 

There  are  but  very  few  instances  where  the  Mosaic  Code  coin¬ 
cides  with  the  Babylonian  one;  such  are  the  cases  of  the  mar¬ 
riage  of  a  secondary  wife,  the  granting  to  daughters  a  wedding 
dower,  the  law  of  inheritance  and  that  of  primogeniture.  Whilst 
their  contrasts  and  opposite  views  are  almost  general  and  le¬ 
gion,  especially  antagonistic  are  they  in  their  spirit.  In  the 
grand  total  the  Mosaic  Code  is  infinitely  wiser,  milder,  juster, 
purer  and,  above  all,  more  humane,  liberal  and  democratic.  It 
ever  tends  to  elevate  the  masses  and  repress  the  pride  of  the 
classes;  to  penetrate  and  permeate  both  with  the  idea  of  one 
Father  and  God,  one  law  for  all;  sympathy,  altruism,  charity 
and  forgiveness ;  to  pluck  out  the  sting  of  envy,  invidiousness 
and  bitter  rancor  from  the  poor  man’s  heart ;  the  pride,  coldness 
and  haughtiness  of  the  strong,  the  greed  and  accaparation  spirit 
of  the  rich.  The  very  antithesis  to  that  is  the  Code  of  Hammu¬ 
rabi.  That  code  is  the  will  of  a  conqueror,  written  with  the 
point  of  the  dagger  dipped  in  blood,  aiming  at  perpetuating  his 
empire,  his  own  classes  and  the  lowly  masses,  as  nobles  and  ple¬ 
beians;  not  a  democratic,  homogeneous  people,  which,  as  young 
Israel,  shall  stand  and  continue  for  thousands  of  years  and  fight 
the  battles  of  human  liberation.  The  Babylonian  Stela,  with  its 

'Corn.  Napos,  vitro  imperatorum,  Cap.  IV.  :  Quum  suas  laudes  audiret 
prrodicari,  nunquam  aliud  dixit,  quam  se  in  ea  re  maximas  diis  gratias 
agere  atque  habere,  quod,  quum  Siciliam  recreare  constituissent,  turn 
se  potissimum  ducem  esse  voluissent. 


SLAVERY. 


197 


282  sections,  contains,  not  a  shadow  or  a  trace  of  the  spiritual¬ 
ity,  holiness,  sympathy,  purity  and  veracity  lessons  and  ideals  of 
the  Bible.  “Holy  shall  ye  be  for  holy  is  God,”  “Thou  shalt  love 
thy  neighbor  as  thyself,”  are  not  even  hinted  at  in  the  lines  of 
the  Stela.  Hor  would  ever  a  votary  of  that  law  have  aspired  at 
martyrdom  or  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven  on  earth.  Such  ideals 
and  Utopias  are  perfectly  foreign  to  the  practical  spirit  of  the 
Babylonian  Code.  What  that  aimed  at  was  the  realism  of  Bis¬ 
marck,  the  polity  of  annexation  by  “iron  and  blood”  !  It  is  there¬ 
fore  preposterous  to  put  that  in  competition  and  rivalry  with 
the  Sinai  Code.  It  is  a  gross  piece  of  anti-Semitism,  odiously 
misapplied  to  science  and  history. 

Professor  Sayce  on  it. 

The  above  treatise  on  Moses  and  Hammurabi  was  written 
and,  in  major  part,  published  in  a  weekly  St.  Louis  paper,  when 
I  wrote  about  it  to  my  honored  friend,  Professor  A.  H.  Sayce, 
of  Oxford  and  Cairo,  imparting  to  him  my  decided  views  on 
that  subject.  The  following  is  his  reply,  he  fully  coinciding 
with  them.  Soon  in  England  he  wrote  me  again,  informing  me 
that  he  had  lectured  there  on  that  theme  and  entirely  from  the 
same  standpoint.  As  in  Germany,  so  in  England  there  was  a 
great  hubbub  on  the  matter.  I  give  the  reader  the  benefit  of 
the  Professor’s  letter : 

“Dahalia,  Istar,  Cairo,  Egypt,  Uov.  20,  1903. 

“ Dear  Dr.  Fluegel: 

“I  am  once  more  back  in  Egypt,  as  you  will  see.  I  have  spent 
the  summer  over  Khammurabi’s  Code,  and  have  been  more  and 
more  impressed  by  its  contrast  to  the  Mosaic  one.  The  one  is 
addressed  to  a  commercial  monarchy,  the  other  to  a  compact 
body  of  confederated  tribes.  The  first  is  Draconian  in  its  sever¬ 
ity,  the  second  starts  from  the  belief  that  crime  is  really  sin. 
This  is  the  difference  between  law  founded  on  force  and  utility, 
and  law  which  recognizes  a  moral  and  Scriptural  basis. 


“A.  H.  Sayce.” 


198 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


THE  TWELVE  TABLES  OF  BOME  (449  B.  C.) 

We  offer  here  extracts  from  the  Roman  Twelve  Tables,  viz, 
such  sections  as  have  some  analogy  with  the  Mosaic  Laws,  either 
assenting  or  dissenting,  adding  thereat  some  succinct  remarks  in 
elucidation. 

(Table  II.,  4)  :  “Theft  may  be  the  subject  of  compromise.” 
That  is  rather  of  a  doubtful  polity,  especially  since  theft  some¬ 
times  entailed  death.  Mosaism  has  the  thief  pay,  according  to 
the  property  stolen,  the  principal  and  one-fifth  over  and  above ; 
in  graver  cases,  two,  four  and  five  times  as  much  as  the  original 
value,  specifying  each  case. 

(Table  III.,  1)  :  “In  case  of  an  admitted  debt,  30  days  shall 
be  allowed  for  payment.”  Mosaism  is  not  so  exacting,  whilst  the 
Release  Year  cancels  all  indebtedness,  the  law  aiming  at  avoid¬ 
ing  pauperism,  enslavement  and  wealth  aristocracy. 

(2)  :  “In  default  of  payment,  after  30  days  the  debtor  may 
be  arrested  and  brought  before  the  magistrate.”  The  Rabbin¬ 
ical  practice  would  advise  here  patience  and  leniency,  conform¬ 
ing  to  the  Pentateuch. 

(3)  :  “Unless  the  debtor  pays,  or  some  one  guarantees  the 
payment,  the  creditor  may  take  the  debtor  away  with  him  and 
bind  him  with  fetters.”  Hot  so  Mosaism,  as  seen  above;  the 
person  can  never  be  taken  in  pledge. 

(4)  :  “If  the  debtor  (thus  fettered)  be  poor,  the  creditor 
shall  give  him  at  least  one  pound  of  bread  daily.”  The  Thora 
allows  no  imprisonment  for  debts:  “Eye  for  eye”  and  goods  for 
goods,  nor  does  it  allow  starvation  rations.  The  Talmud  ever 
prescribes  the  same  food  for  master  and  slave  even. 

(5)  :  “If  the  debt  be  not  paid,  the  debtor  may  be  kept  in 
bonds  for  60  days.  In  the  course  of  this  period  he  shall  be 
brought  before  the  Praetor  on  the  three  successive  market  days, 
and  the  amount  of  the  debt  shall  be  publicly  declared.  After  the 
third  market  day  the  debtor  may  be  punished  with  death,  or  sold 
beyond  the  Tiber”  (eternal  slavery).  Mosaism  allows  hiring 
him  out  for  six  years’  labor  as  the  maximum. 

Fluegel’s  “Humanity,  Benevolence  and  Charity  of  the  Pentateuch. 


F ATRIA  POTESTAS. 


199 


(6)  :  “Or  the  creditor  may  cut  off  several  portions  of  his 
body.  Any  one  that  cuts  more  or  less  than  his  just  due,  is  guilt¬ 
less.”  That  is  the  utmost  possible  barbarity.  According  to  the 
Mosaic  Law,  nothing  of  all  that  is  allowed  for  debt ;  neither  per¬ 
sonal  imprisonment,  nor  60  days  in  bonds  on  bread  and  water, 
nor  putting  to  death,  nor  definite  enslavement,  nor  cutting  off 
pieces  of  his  body.  That  statute  remained  intact  in  the  Codex 
Justinianus,  passed  to  Christian  Italy  and  commercial  Venice, 
and  hence  Shylock,  asking  for  a  pound  of  flesh  from  his  debtor, 
relied  not  on  the  Mosaic  Law,  but  on  that  of  the  Romano- Vene¬ 
tian  one.  Mark  this  well,  Reader  ! 

Patria  Potestas. 

(Table  IV.,  1)  :  “Monstrous  or  deformed  offspring  may  be 
put  to  death.”  This  is  strictly  forbidden  by  Mosaism ! 

(2)  :  “The  father  shall,  during  his  whole  life,  have  absolute 
power  over  his  legitimate  children.  He  may  imprison  his  son, 
or  scourge  him,  or  keep  him  working  in  the  fields,  or  in  fetters,  or 
put  him  to  death ;  even  if  the  son  hold  the  highest  office  of  state 
and  be  celebrated  for  his  public  services,  still  he  may  he  sold  by 
his  father  as  a  slave.”  Mosaism  allows  the  (starving)  father  to 
sell  his  (minor)  daughter — into  marriage. 

(3)  :  “He  may  sell  him  even  for  the  third  time;  after  this 
the  son  is  free”  .  .  . 

All  this  is  built  on  the  principle  of  “parental  power,”  family- 
slavery;  Mosaism  is  built  on  universal  liberty.  Therefore  the 
grown  son  was  absolutely  free  in  person,  goods  and  actions ;  he 
could  not  be  put  to  death,  or  scourged,  or  fettered,  or  kept  to 
involuntary  work,  or  sold  as  a  slave.  A  minor  daughter  (below 
I2V2  years),  of  a  very  poor  father,  could  be  sold  into  marriage, 
but  after  12 Ml  years  of  age  she  also  was  free  to  leave.  And  even 
that  was  practically  abolished  by  the  Rabbis.  A  rebellious  son, 
with  dangerous,  premature  viciousness,  was  to  be  examined  and 
punished  by  the  Elders,  and  this  only  on  very  grave  grounds,  as 
a  precautionary  measure,  and  greatly  limited  by  the  rules  of  the 
procedure,  yea,  rendered  nigh  impossible. 

(Table  VII.,  5)  :  “For  the  settlement  of  disputes  (as  to 
boundaries)  three  arbiters  shall  be  appointed.” 


200 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


Three  arbiters’  settlement  is  also  the  general  rule  in  the  Tal¬ 
mud,  though  exceptionally  one  expert,  Mumhe,  with  authority, 
would  do;  still  termed  bold,  huzeph ;  three  men  make  up  a  judi¬ 
cial  court ;  two  witnesses  are  proof  of  an  allegation. 

But  the  Roman  arbiters  were  but  delegated  judges.  The  case 
was  first  heard  by  the  state  mgaistrate,  who  appointed  them  to 
settle  it  on  certain  legal  lines,  akin  to  our  judge  defining  and 
leaving  the  case  to  the  select  jurymen;  an  important  feature  not 
known  to  the  Rabbinical  procedure,  and  which  shows  the  Roman 
legal  profession  to  come  next  in  acuteness  and  valor  to  the  Ro¬ 
man  legions. 

Torts. 

(Table  VIII.,  1)  :  “Whosoever  will  publish  a  libel  (imput¬ 
ing  crime  or  immorality  to  any  one)  shall  be  beaten  to  death 
with  clubs.”  The  crime  and  the  revenge  are  peculiarly  Roman, 
patrician,  exceedingly  harsh  and  cruel ;  there  is  nothing  of  the 
kind  in  Pentateuch  or  Talmud.  The  first  forbids  it,1  but  the 
latter  imposes  no  stripes,2  the  less  death,  for  it. 

(2)  :  “If  a  man  break  another  man’s  limb  and  they  do  not 
compromise  the  injury,  he  shall  be  liable  to  retaliation.”  This 
is  opening  the  door  to  a  forest  of  litigation.  Apparently,  but 
not  really,  here  is  the  Mosaic  law  of  talion:  “Eye  for  eye,  and 
tooth  for  tooth,”  which  the  Talmud  correctly  interpreted  as 
meaning  an  adequate,  equal  compensation  in  money,  price  of  an 
eye  for  an  eye.  So,  at  any  rate,  it  is  the  axiom  of  human  equal¬ 
ity  and  straight  justice,  equity.  Hot  so  in  the  Roman  law. 
There  were  different  standards,  scales  and  weights.  There  were 
different  classes,  persons,  limbs  and  their  diverse  values  and 
prices,  fixed  by  arbitrary  arbiters.  There  were  limbs  of  patri¬ 
cians  and  of  plebeians,  of  Senators  and  of  knights,  of  allies, 
friends,  enemies,  foreigners  and  slaves,  of  women  and  children, 
of  privileged  persons  and  those  beneath  the  law.  Hence  the  lex 
talionis  was  but  a  screen  for  the  arbitrariness  of  the  judges  and 
the  strong  and  fruitful  field  for  chicanery. 

HI.  M.  23.1  NIC?  I?Dt?  Nt?n  CO 

’Since  a  prohibition  without  an  action  entails  no  stripes,  nt?J70  13  J’NC?  ICO 
a  general  juridical  axiom. 


TORTS. 


201 


(3)  :  “For  breaking  a  bone  of  a  freeman  the  penalty  shall  be 
300  ases ;  that  of  a  slave,  150.”  ISTo  doubt,  each  social  rank  had 
its  own  price-list,  adjusted  by  the  arbitrary  arbiter.  The  Mo¬ 
saic  and  the  Rabbinical  Laws  were  democratic  and  ignored  legal 
discriminations. 

(6)  :  “A  quadruped  that  had  done  damage  on  a  neighbor’s 
land,  shall  be  given  up  to  the  aggrieved  party,  unless  compensa¬ 
tion  is  made”  (adequate  to  the  damage).  So,  too,  is  the  Mosaic 
Law.  Here  is  the  axiom,  “Eve  for  eye”  etc.  ruling  the  case. 

(8)  :  “A  man  shall  not  remove  his  neighbor’s  crops  to  an¬ 
other  field  by  incantation,  nor  conjure  away  his  corn.”  That 
Roman  chief  magistrates,  lawgivers,  still  believed  in  such  torts 
is  significant  enough.  The  Hebraic  one  did  not.  The  Talmud  is 
silent  on  such  pleas. 

(9)  :  “An  adult  person  depasturing  or  cutting  down  a  neigh¬ 
bor’s  crop  by  stealth,  in  the  night  .  .  .  shall  be  devoted  to  (god¬ 
dess  of  vegetation)  Ceres  and  hanged.”  That  is  at  once  inade¬ 
quate,  harsh  and  superstitious.  The  punishment  is  immeas¬ 
urably  beyond  the  crime.  The  principle  of  “Eye  for  eye  and 
tooth  for  tooth”  warrants  property  for  property,  not  life  for 
trifles  of  property.  The  Roman  law  was  dictated  by  a  victorious 
race  against  conquered  ones,  the  first,  generally,  the  landown¬ 
ers,  the  latter  the  original  owners,  now  subject  workers,  peas¬ 
ants.  Whilst  the  Mosaic  Law  is  enacted  upon  a  unique  or  at 
least  assimilated,  united  people,  a  democracy  of  equal  citizens, 
small  farmers  and  free  workers,  the  Twelve  Tables,  as  Ham¬ 
murabi’s  Code,  we  have  remarked,  aim  at  perpetuating  the  do¬ 
minion  of  caste  and  conquest.  The  Mosaic  one  aims  at  an  equal, 
homogeneous  society ;  hence  the  difference. 

(10)  :  “If  a  man  wilfully  set  fire  to  a  house  or  corn  field 
...  he  shall  be  bound,  scourged  and  burnt  alive.”  All  that 

is  the  dictation  of  the  conqueror  to  the  sly  and  treacherous, 
subjugated  party,  each  fighting  with  his  own  weapons.  Mosa- 
ism  simply  states  he  must  pay,  according  to  the  rule :  “Life  fox 
life,  eye  for  eye,  and  property  for  property.” 

(12)  :  “A  person  committing  theft  in  the  night  may  law¬ 
fully  be  killed.” 


202 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


(13)  :  “But  in  daytime  a  thief  shall  not  be  killed,  unless  he 
defend  himself  with  a  weapon.”  II  M.,  22.1,  states:  “If  the 
thief  breaks  (into  a  house)  in  the  dark  and  is  killed,  there  is  no 
murder ;  if  in  daytime,  there  is.”  The  Talmud  interprets  other¬ 
wise  (see  above  on  this),  still  humanely. 

(14)  :  “If  theft  be  committed  in  daytime  and  the  thief 
be  taken  in  the  act  and  do  not  defend  himself  with  a  weapon, 
then,  if  a  freeman,  he  shall  be  scourged  and  remain  a  bondsman 
to  the  person  robbed ;  if  a  slave,  he  shall  be  scourged  and  be 
hurled  down  from  the  Tarpaian  Rock.”  Mosaism  enacts :  (II  M., 
23.1-2)  “If  the  thief  on  being  found  breaking  into  the  house  (in 
the  dark)  is  smitten  and  dies,  there  is  no  murder;  but  if  in  sun¬ 
light  (daytime),  there  is  murder;  (if  alive)  he  is  to  pay;  if  he 
has  not,  he  shall  be  sold  (for  six  working  years)  for  (the  amount 
of)  his  theft.”  Ho  scourging,  no  death,  and  no  eternal  slavery. 
Human  life  and  liberty  are  higher  than  property.  This  is  the 
Mosaic  theory  and  practice ;  whilst  to  the  Roman  and  the  Baby¬ 
lonian  lawgivers  property  is  more  precious  than  life. 

(18) :  “A  money  lender  exacting  higher  interest  than  the 
legal  rate  of  10  per  cent,  per  annum  is  liable  to  fourfold  dam¬ 
ages.” 

Mosaism  forbids  all  interest  on  money,  or  any  profit  on  goods 
taken  from  a  countryman ;  from  the  commercial  stranger  it  is 
allowed.  Whilst  the  Rabbis  discriminated  only  between  busi¬ 
ness  loans  and  loans  from  poverty  and  distress. 

(23)  :  “False  witnesses  shall  be  hurled  down  from  the  Tar¬ 
paian  Rock.”  Moses  states :  (V  M.,  19.19)  “As  he  maliciously 
intended  to  do,  shall  be  done  unto  him.”  This  again  is  the 
just  axiom  of  “Eye  for  eye”  etc.,  overlooked  by  the  Roman  law. 

(24)  :  “If  one  kills  another  accidentally,  he  shall  atone  by 
sacrificing  a  ram.”  Mosaism  ordains  here  exile,  more  com¬ 
mensurate  with  the  deed,  especially  as  killing  “accidentally”  is, 
in  fact,  most  frequently  murder  unproven,  homicide  in  second 
degree,  for  which  a  ram-sacrifice  is  entirely  inadequate ;  while 
stealing  a  crop  is  a  capital  crime.  This  again  shows  how  to  the 
Roman  patrician  the  life  of  the  plebeian  was  cheap. 


SACRED  LAWS. 


203 


(IX.,  3)  :  “An  arbiter  convicted  of  bribery  is  to  be  punished 
with  death.”  Here,  too,  should  the  lex  talionis  be  meted  out; 
nothing  more  or  less  ;  a  heavy  fine  and  loss  of  office  should  do. 

(6)  :  “Ho  one  shall  be  put  to  death,  except  after  formal  trial 
and  sentence.”  But  this  militates  against  the  patria  potestas. 
The  father  could  arbitrarily  kill  his  child.  Mosaism  allows  nei¬ 
ther  the  State  nor  the  father  to  kill  without  public  trial  and  sen¬ 
tence  ;  ever  it  requires  two  witnesses  and  judges,  and  the  Talmud 
requires  even  a  warning,  defiant  acceptance  etc. 

Sacred  Laws. 

(X.,  1)  :  “A  dead  body  shall  not  be  buried  within  the  city.” 
The  Pentateuch  declares  the  dead  impure,  hence  he  must  be 
buried  out  of  the  city  limits,  from  reasons  of  Levitical  cleanli¬ 
ness,  identical  with  public  hygiene.1 

(3)  :  “Hot  more  than  three  mourners  shall  be  draped  in  spe¬ 
cial  mourning,  and  not  more  than  ten  flute-players  attend  the 
fuenral.”  Many  more  sections  prohibit  too  great  display  at 
funerals. 

It  was  Rabban  Gamaliel,  the  Hassi,  who  abolished  all  extrava¬ 
gant  funeral  pomp  by  ordaining  to  be  buried  himself  in  plain 
white  shrouds,  a  custom  still  retained  by  conservative  Jews.  Fu¬ 
nerals  used  to  be  very  onerous  and  costly ;  they  begin  to  be  so 
again.  Our  American  fellow-citizens  often  set  the  example  of 
great  display  at  funerals. 

(X.,  4)  :  “Women  (as  mourners)  shall  not  tear  their  cheeks 
nor  indulge  in  wailing.”  The  same  nearly  is  ordained  in  the 
Pentateuch  and  Talmud.  The  latter  frequently  alludes  to  such 
wailing  women  and  flute-players. 

(XI.,  I)  :  “Patricians  shall  not  intermarry  with  plebeians.” 
To  show  its  great  import,  this  single  statute,  of  half  a  line,  oc¬ 
cupies  the  entire  Table  XI.,  and  it  is  pregnant  with  the  gravest 
results.  It  is  the  cue  to  the  Roman  society,  its  hitsory,  develop¬ 
ment  and  entire  legislation.  The  entire  legislation  hinges  on 
that  pivot,  the  interests  of  the  higher  caste,  the  patricians.  And 
in  order  to  perpetuate  them  and  the  dominion  of  their  caste  (no 


’See  my  “Diet  and  Hygiene.” 


204 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


doubt,  the  conquerors  of  the  subjugated  native  aborigines),  not 
only  the  weight  of  the  law  was  to  confer  the  power  on  and  re¬ 
tain  it  with  that  caste,  but  the  chief  social  feature  became  the 
race  predominance,  the  class  division,  classes  and  masses,  the 
discrimination  of  origin,  perpetuated  in  the  offspring  by  forbid¬ 
ding  intermarriage  between  the  conquerors  and  the  conquered 
clans  or  gens.  And  just  here  is  the  leading  and  most  striking 
contrast  between  the  Roman  and  the  Mosaic  Law.  The  Mosaic 
one,  too,  had  something  of  an  aristicratic  class,  the  tribe  of 
Levi,  or  rather  the  ( Kohanim )  class  of  the  higher  priesthood. 
But  since  that  gens  had  its  origin  in  sacerdotal,  or  in  patriotic, 
or  in  political  or  family  influence,  not  in  conquest  and  military 
service,  their  power  was  but  spiritual.  The  mass  of  the  Levites 
and  priests  were  but  the  equals  of  the  rest  of  the  nation  before 
the  law.  They  could  and  did  actually  intermarry  with  the  mass 
of  the  people.  The  Pentateuch  and  even  the  Talmud  ever  rank 
the  Levite  with  the  poor  and  the  orphan  etc.  The  Rabbis  rec¬ 
ommended  intermarriage  with  scholarly  families,  not  with 
priestly  ones.  Their  principle  was :  “A  learned  bastard  is  supe¬ 
rior  to  an  ignorant  high  priest.”  They  formed  no  entrenched, 
hereditary  aristocracy  beyond  the  precincts  of  the  Temple.  And 
while  their  chiefs  were  leading,  their  rank  and  file  were  fused 
with  the  people  in  every  respect,  except  their  Aaronide,  or  priest¬ 
ly  functions  and  prescriptions.  Hence  was  Israel,  notwithstand¬ 
ing  the  priestly  clan,  a  democracy.  Rome  was  an  aristocratic 
State.  Caesar,  rather  than  Brutus,  headed  the  democracy,  wish¬ 
ing  to  entirely  abolish  that  XII  Tables  Law,  half  disestablished 
since  the  rise  of  Sulla  and  Marius. 

Supplement. 

(XII.,  3)  :  “If  anyone  wrongfully  obtain  possession  of  a 
thing  that  is  subject  to  litigation,  the  magistrate  shall  appoint 
three  arbiters  to  decide  the  ownership,  and  in  adverse  decision 
the  fraudulent  possessor  shall  pay  as  a  compensation  double  the 
value  of  the  thing  in  litigation.” 

Three  arbiters  is  also,  as  a  rule,  Rabbinical  Law;  but  to  pay 
double  the  amount  of  the  contested  object  is  peculiarly  Roman, 


SUPPLEMENT. 


205 


and  may  be  explained  by  the  frequency  of  usurpations  and  as  a 
measure  to  curb  and  restrain  such  robbery.  Possibly  it  was  en¬ 
acted  in  favor  of  the  plebeians,  often  oppressed.  According  to 
Mosaic  and  Rabbinical  Law,  possession  confers  a  presumption 
of  the  right  to  the  thing  possessed,  and  the  burden  of  the  proof 
to  the  contrary  lay  on  the  contestant.  Proof  adduced,  then  the 
contestant  obtains  the  thing  in  litigation,  but  no  more  than 
that.  Generally  the  Roman  and  the  Babylonian  Codes  are  char¬ 
acterized  by  harshness  and  over-severity ;  fines  are  constantly 
accompanying  the  sword  of  justice,  and  this  is  a  usual  feature 
of  a  legislation  enacted  by  conquest  and  with  a  view  of  perpetu¬ 
ating  it;  the  vast  majority,  if  not  all,  of  the  Decemvirs  framing 
it,  was  patrician  and  originally  all  of  the  Senate.  The  Mosaic 
Code,  intended  for  one  united,  assimilated  and  homogeneous 
people,  is  therefore  infinitely  milder  than  the  first;  justice  is 
tempered  with  mercy,  aiming  at  perpetuating  a  peaceful  democ¬ 
racy,  not  a  military  aristocracy  as  Rome  and  Babylon  were.  So 
we  find  that  Ovid  (Metamorphoses  I.,  III.,  v.  92)  alludes  thus 
to  the  Twelve  Tables  of  the  Capitol:1  “First  came  the  golden 
age,  no  avenger  was  needed;  without  law,  right  and  faith  were 
practiced ;  tears  and  punishments  were  absent ;  nor  were  threat¬ 
ening  words  engraved  on  brass  to  be  read.” 

The  law  ever  holds  up  a  menacing  sword.  So  were  the  XII 
Tables  and  so  the  Code  of  Hammurabi,  as  seen  above.  No  less 
stringent  is  the  Mosaic  Code.  But  it  shows  also  the  Deity 
as  abounding  in  pity  and  sympathy:  “God  reigns  on  high  and 
benignly  looks  down  upon  the  widow  and  orphan.”  “If  yoxi 
oppress  them,  and  they  will  cry  unto  me,  I  am  misericordious, 
and  I  shall  kill  you  by  the  sword  of  war  and  make  your  wives 
widows  and  your  children  orphans !”  Here  is  God  both  the 
sword  of  justice  and  the  heart  of  pity,  and  the  law,  too,  is 
justice  and  vengeance  to  the  wrong-doer,  humanity  and  charity 
to  the  weak  and  the  innocent. 


JNec  verba  minaeia  fixo  sere  legebantur. 


206 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

The  Bible  and  Babylonia;  Professor  Sayce, 

Dr.  A.  H.  Sayce,  Professor  of  Assyriology  etc  at  the  Univer¬ 
sity  of  Oxford,  England,  has  recently  (in  1902)  published  an 
important  work  on  the  results  of  the  discoveries  in  Egypt  and 
Babylonia.  The  work  is  denominated :  “The  Religions  of  An¬ 
cient  Egypt  and  Babylonia,”  treating  of  their  possible  influence 
on  Bible  and  Gospel,  a  theme  in  striking  connection  with  ours 
here,  the  Mosaic  laws  with  their  analogies  and  contrasts  else¬ 
where. 

Professor  A.  H.  Sayce  needs  no  introduction  to  serious  read¬ 
ers.  He  bears  one  of  the  very  foremost  literary  names,  and 
stands  in  the  forefront  among  the  masters  of  the  Oriental  sci¬ 
ence  since  the  latter  half  of  the  nineteenth  century,  a  writer  of 
nearly  forty  years’  standing.1  He  is  equipped  with  the  learning 
and  the  experience  of  the  age ;  an  original  thinker,  a  propagator 
and  a  contributor  to  science,  of  a  race  of  men  exceedingly  rare 
at  all  times.  There  is  and  was  ever  no  lack  of  so-called  “au¬ 
thors,”  dilettante  in  learning,  devoid  of  originality,  who  never 
had  a  rational  thought  of  their  own,  who  never  digested  and 
comprehended  the  little  they  have  read,  who  live  on  copying, 
plagiarism  and  commonplace,  reckoning  upon  the  indulgence  of 
the  reader.  Of  another  stamp  is  Professor  Sayce ;  he  belongs  to 
the  small  minority  of  conscientious  savants,  who  never  under¬ 
take  to  write  but  after  wide  and  careful  study,  assiduous  medi¬ 
tation  and  gradual  arrival  at  solid  and  clear  results,  opening  new 
vistas  and  new  starting  points  for  further  research.  Nearly 
every  page  of  his  work  is  telling,  full  of  facts  and  fraught  with 
important  conclusions.  There  are  everywhere  “scholars”  who 
remind  one  of  the  Oriental  proverb:  “A  copper  coin  in  a  clay 
jar  rings  loudly.”2  Professor  Sayce,  on  the  contrary,  is  “a  well- 
filled  gold  purse,  silent,  modest  and  dignified,”  or  “A  well-ce- 

‘In  1902. 

5xnp  c^p  c^p  nrjba  KinD’N 


SUPPLEMENT. 


207 


mented  cistern,  freshly  preserving  its  water  and  never  losing  a 
drop”  (Aboth). 

In  this  book  he  offers  ns  a  clue  and  an  analysis  of  the  ethics, 
the  religions,  the  rites,  the  temples,  the  worship,  views,  doctrines, 
habits  and  feelings  of  the  ancient  Egyptians  and  Babylonians, 
with  a  host  of  interesting  parallelisms  and  striking  contrasts 
between  them  and  us,  between  then  and  now.  He,  moreover, 
shows  their  concepts  and  thoughts  as  not  having  died  out  and 
disappeared,  but  rather  as  having  fructified  and  invigorated  in 
our  modern  soil ;  that  after  having  passed  through  the  crucible  of 
centuries  of  time  and  continents  of  space,  we  find  them  reno¬ 
vated  and  essentially  identical,  though  with  other  names  and 
paraphernalia,  in  our  own  philosophy,  creeds,  churches,  societies, 
folklore  and  private  opinions.  He  concludes  that  the  ancient 
Egyptians  and  their  ethical  ideas  are  the  forerunners  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  and  the  Hew  Testament  ;  whilst  the  ancient  Babylonians’ 
ethical  ideas  are  the  lower  stage  and  modest  antecedents  of  Mo- 
saism  and  the  Old  Testament.  I  cannot  everywhere  coincide 
with  him  and  shall  often  offer  my  respectful  veto.  Still,  I  ad¬ 
mire  his  fine,  reverential  tact  and  moderation,  for  just  here  is 
prominent  and  salient  his  uncommon  common  sense  and  his  high 
sense  of  justice  and  propriety,  refusing  the  smoke  of  glory  and 
notoriety  which,  as  others,  he  could  have  acquired  cheaply.  He 
will  not  tell  you  that  Jesus,  Peter  or  Paul  have  committed  pla¬ 
giarism  upon  Egyptian  kings  and  hierophants ;  nor  that  Moses, 
Isaiah  or  Hillel  have  copied  and  borrowed  from  Sargon  of  Ac- 
cad  or  Hammurabi  of  Babylon,  or  Ea  of  Eridu.  You  will  never 
detect  that  veteran  scholar  and  critic  in  such  puerile  perpetra¬ 
tions,  becoming  an  audacious  dilettante,  not  a  serious  thinker. 
For  Professor  Sayce  well  knows  the  great  intellectual  law  of 
continuity  of  thought,  as  that  of  gravitation  is  in  physics,  the 
law  of  the  indestructibility  of  mind,  as  that  of  force ;  that,  hap¬ 
pily  for  human  advance,  the  chain  of  great  ideas  is  never  broken 
off  and  definitely  interrupted ;  that  one  brain-worker  evolves, 
from  long  experiences  and  after  careful  meditation,  a  new  idea, 
an  additional  thought-limb,  the  result  of  an  interminable  chain 


208 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


of  reasonings,  inaugurated  thousands  of  years  before  him,  and 
leaves ;  and  another  thinker  resumes  the  thread  left  by  him ;  he 
smoothens  it,  corrects  it,  spins  it  out  a  little  further,  and  adds  a 
new  atom,  a  further  link  to  the  previous  line  of  truth;  just  as 
the  bees  build  their  hives,  adding  particles  of  wax  and  honey 
to  other  particles,  previously  accumulated.  This  means  the  law 
of  intellectual  evolution.  It  happens,  too,  sometimes,  that  it 
develops  backward,  the  wrong  way ;  hut  soon  it  is  straightened 
out  and  develops  progressively ;  until,  at  last,  after  centuries 
and  millennia,  we  find  something  apparently  new,  startling,  dif¬ 
ferent  from,  wonderfully  transformed  and  improved  upon  its 
pattern,  its  original ;  nevertheless,  on  careful  examination,  we 
distinctly  recognize  the  rudiments,  the  first  rings,  the  incipient 
seed,  still  latent  in  its  surprisingly  new  form ;  be  that  a  race,  a 
church,  a  society,  an  institution,  a  system,  which  had  existed 
thousands  of  years  ago  under  other  names,  symbols  and  auspices. 
In  such  a  way  Professor  Sayce  shows  that  the  ancient  religion 
of  the  Egyptians  underlies  that  of  today’s  Christianity,  and  that 
the  ancient  Babylonian  ideas,  institutions  and  philosophems  are 
the  necessary  previous  links  of  the  Mosaic  institutions,  rites  and 
doctrines.  But,  mind  it  well,  Professor  Sayce  does  not  claim 
that  either  Sinai  or  Nazareth,  either  Moses,  David,  Ezra  or 
Jesus  were  counterfeiters,  imitators  and  copyists.  No;  he  hints 
that  by  the  law  of  continuity  of  thought,  as  the  well-known  prin¬ 
ciple  of  the  indestructibility  of  force,  the  grand  and  sublime 
ideas  and  concepts  about  God,  Providence,  soul,  duty,  right  and 
goodness,  half  surmised  and  entertained  in  ancient  Egypt  and 
Babylonia,  irradiated  to  Sinai,  Sichem,  Shilo  and  Moriah,  later 
to  Alexandria  and  Jerusalem,  then  to  Tiberias,  Antiochia,  Ath¬ 
ens  etc. ;  that  there  they  were  ever  more  elaborated  and  refined, 
and  promulgated  at  last  as  the  Decalogue  to  Israel,  as  the  Ser¬ 
mon  on  the  Mount  to  Christendom,  as  the  Old  or  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment,  as  the  system  of  Judaism,  of  Christianity;  and  that 
nearly  the  same  relation  which  exists  now  between  these  two 
latter  doctrines  is,  in  rudiment,  to  be  detected  in  the  two  an¬ 
cient  religions  of  Egypt  and  of  Babylonia.  That  is  the  net  re- 


REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION. 


209 


suit  of  Professor  Sayce’s  investigations  elaborated  in  bis  high¬ 
ly  interesting,  fascinating  work. 

Now,  no  doubt,  that  is  not  the  usual  popular  way  of  under¬ 
standing  the  Gospel  or  the  Bible,  literal  inspiration,  revelation 
and  prophecy.  But  we  must  not  forget  that  Professor  Sayce 
does  not  speak  here  ex-cathedra  and  as  a  theologian.  He  studies 
here  history,  archaeology,  philosophy,  development  of  religions, 
and  ethical  ideas ;  and  the  method  he  suggests  to  ripe-thinking 
students  is  surely  not  unworthy  of  Providence  or  human  genius  : 
That  our  great  salutary  world-truths  are  inspirations  of  the  di¬ 
vine  mind  elaborated  in  the  human  mind,  is  acceptable  to  both 
rationalists  and  spiritualists,  and  not  derogatory  to  the  Bible.1 

Revelation  and  Inspiration. 

But  one  wTill  ask :  If  the  speculations  of  Babylonia  have 
evolved  the  Ten  Commandments,  monotheism  and  Ihvh-wor- 
ship,  and  the  creeds  of  Egypt  have  developed  into  Christianity, 
morality  and  hereafter,  what  shall  become  of  our  own  faith 
and  doctrines  of  revelation,  of  inspiration,  of  prophecy  ?  What 
of  our  pious  traditions  that  Moses  but  held  the  pen  and  that  he 
was  dictated  to  by  “the  mouth  of  God”  ?  What  shall  become 
of  the  belief  that  the  founders  of  Christianity,  too,  and  the 
writers  of  the  Gospels  were  divinely  inspired  ?  Are  these  les¬ 
sons  of  piety  from  early  childhood  mere  nursery  tales  ?  In  re¬ 
ply  to  this,  the  Professor  hints:  No,  they  are  no  fables,  if  cor¬ 
rectly  understood  and  intelligently  interpreted  in  proper  terms 
for  adult  mature  age.  The  Sunday-school  is  to  teach  children ; 
whilst  higher  religion  and  philosophy  teach  grown  men  and 
woman.  They  speak  to  their  reason  and  heart,  not  to  their 
fancy  and  naive  love  of  the  marvelous;  hence  the  difference,  dif¬ 
ference  in  language  and  form,  not  in  fact  and  essence.  The  dis¬ 
crepancy  is  merely,  simply  in  words.  The  instructor  of  adults 
speaks  in  clearer  words  and  more  lucid  syllogisms.  So  the  cate¬ 
chism  told  us :  God  spake  to  Moses  and  Israel :  Do  right !  Rea¬ 
soned,  adult  religion  tells :  God  inspired  to  Moses :  Do  right ! 

’See,  on  kindred  thoughts  and  concepts,  Maimonides  Zeraim,  8  chapters, 
introduction. 


210 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


ISTow  consider:  The  Bible  teaches  and  insists  in  a  hundred  places 
that  God  is  pure  spirit,  without  any  alloy  of  corporeality,  with¬ 
out  limbs  and  bodily  organs.  Whilst,  you  see,  you  and  I  speak, 
viz,  by  our  apparatus  of  chest,  throat,  larynx,  tongue,  breath 
etc.  Shall  we  assume  that  God  spoke  exactly  in  the  same  bodily 
manner  to  Moses  as  I  do  to  you  ?  Then  God  must  have  a 
body,  with  chest,  lungs,  tongue,  teeth — then,  you  and  I  are  idol- 
ators,  not  Biblical  believers !  The  Pentateuch  repeats  again  and 
again :  “Remember  thou  hast  seen  on  Mount  Iloreb  no  figure 
and  no  image,  nothing  but  a  voice  thou  didst  hear”  .  .  .  The 
orthodox  Talmud  assumed  “that  a  specially  created,  divine  voice 
uttered  the  Ten  Commandments.”  That  means  that  God  did 
not  (bodily)  by  mouth,  deliver  his  teachings,  but  he  did  spirit¬ 
ually;  he  inspired  them  to  Moses  and  the  Prophets.  That 
means  that  the  divine,  eternal  Spirit  breathed  them  into  the  hu¬ 
man  spirit ;  the  divine  Reason  reflected  his  light-rays  upon  the 
human  reason ;  God,  the  Ocean  of  Being  and  Light  and  Truth, 
sent  out  a  flash  of  his  light  into  the  soul  of  Moses  and  the 
prophets,  revealing  to  them  the  truths  most  important  for  man¬ 
kind  ;  truths  on  right,  reason,  love  and  virtue.  This  is  the  “di¬ 
vine  voice”  alluded  to  by  the  Holy  Writ  and  the  Rabbis;  claimed 
by  the  Gospel,  the  world’s  teachers  and  philosophers ;  invoked 
by  the  priests  of  Egypt  and  of  Babylonia.  That  voice  of  divine 
truth  has  been  sounding  on  Sinai  to  Moses,  and  from  other 
mounts  to  other  teachers.  Mohammed,  Zoroaster,  Manu,  Menes, 
Buddha  etc.,  each  had  his  sacred  mount  of  revelation,  for,  in¬ 
deed,  not  the  market  or  the  lowly  house  or  valley,  but  on  the 
lofty  mountain-peak,  the  divine  voice  sounds,  and  ever  sounds, 
to  him  who  is  prepared  to  hear.  The  same  divine  voice  an¬ 
nounced  “that  there  is  but  one  God,  of  reason,  justice  and  good¬ 
ness  .  .  .  Thou  slialt  not  murder,  steal,  covet”  etc.  That  voice 
has  been  resounding  since  man  began  to  think  to  this  day.  But, 
first,  it  was  totally  misunderstood,  then  half-understood,  and 
gradually,  with  Moses,  Isaiah,  Ezra,  in  the  Jewish  camp;  with 
ISTazarcth,  Peter  and  Paul  in  the  Christian  camp;  with  Moham¬ 
med,  Abubeker  and  Ali  in  the  Orient,  it  became  clearer  and 
Fluegel’s  “Humanity,  Benevolence  and  Charity  of  the  Pentateuch.” 


REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION. 


211 


brighter  and  louder,  and  taught  distinctly  religion  united  to 
morality,  love  and  reason ;  taught  that  there  is  but  one  God,  in 
spirit,  in  eternity,  who  insists  upon  duty  and  reason,  purity 
and  modesty,  upon:  “Love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself;”  upon:  “Ye 
shall  be  holy,  for  holy  is  your  God upon :  “Do  not  unto  thy 
neighbor  what  thou  wouldst  not  him  do  unto  thee and  final¬ 
ly  :  “Do  unto  thy  neighbor  what  thou  wouldst  like  him  to  do 
unto  thee.”  Yow,  this  “inspiration,”  “revelation,”  or  “divine 
voice”  calling  on  men:  “Be  holy,  for  God  is  holy,”  that  has  at 
all  times  been  sounding,  even  before  Abraham  and  Noah,  to 
every  human  conscience  and  reason,1  but  more  or  less  clear  and 
bright;  until  at  last,  on  Mount  Sinai,  for  the  Jew;  on  Mount 
Olivet,  for  the  Christian,  and  at  Medina,  for  the  Mussulman,  it 
taught  the  higher  religion,  that  of  the  purest  morality  and 
truth.  And  that  gradual  unfolding  of  great  truths  of  purity, 
wisdom  and  goodness,  that  is  called  in  modern  language  devel¬ 
opment,  evolution,  the  slow  revelations  of  God  through  con¬ 
science,  history,  experience  and  reason.  While  in  the  language 
of  the  Sunday-school,  of  childhood,  it  is  termed  verbal  inspira¬ 
tion,  divine  prophecy.  God  reveals  his  truths  by  slow,  histor¬ 
ical  development.  They  are  really  identical,  the  one  class  of 
terms  only  befits  man’s  riper  reason;  the  other,  the  juvenile 
fancy  and  the  nursery.  This  is  the  theory  and  the  morale  of 
the  “Religions  of  Ancient  Egypt  and  Babylonia,”  as  expounded 
and  interpreted  by  Professor  Sayce.  It  goes  to  say  that :  The 
divine  thread  of  ethical  thought  spun  in  the  far-away  East,  in 
India,  China,  Persia,  Babylonia,  Egypt,  was  resumed  and  con¬ 
tinued  in  Arabia  and  Judaea,  in  the  regions  of  Sinai,  Horeb, 
Shiloh,  Karmel  and  Moriah,  and  there  it  revealed  itself  in  the 
Decalogue  and  the  Mosaic  Legislation.  It  radiated  its  light  to 
the  Occident  and  to  the  Orient,  sometimes  brighter  and  some¬ 
times  darker,  according  to  the  genius  of  its  special  exponent 

*1.  M.,  4.10-15,  and  26  etc.,  shows  that  God,  conscience  and  justice  were 
revealed  to  the  human  race  long  before  Sinai  and  the  Patriarchs.  The 
Pentateuch  is  far  from  chauvinistic.  The  prophets  even  gave  their  audi¬ 
ences  astounding  bits  of  truths,  dissimilar  to  our  modern  preachers  expect¬ 
ing  a  re-election. 


212 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


and  the  caliber  of  the  nation  to  which  he  administered.  This 
is  the  logical  and  ethical  outcome  of  Professor  Sayce’s  re¬ 
searches. 

And  here  is  not  the  least  derogation  to  the  great  place  and 
import  of  religion  in  the  human  sphere,  nor  any  disrespect  to 
the  authority  of  Scripture  and  the  divine  voice  proclaiming  it. 
The  import  of  the  religion  of  the  Decalogue  and  of  morality 
lies  in  these  latter  themselves,  in  their  intrinsic  value.  Analyze 
the  ten  words  of  Horeb,  and  you  cannot  help  recognize  in  them 
the  divine  seal  of  eternal  truth ;  and  the  fact  of  showing  that 
they  had  already  dawned  in  the  minds  of  other  than  Judaean 
or  Galilean  sages,  and  even  thousands  of  years  earlier,  would 
not  in  the  least  detract  from  their  sterling  worth.  Nay,  it  would 
render  them  even  more  illustrious  and  important.  A  diamond 
is  a  precious  gem,  not  because  it  is  set  in  a  gold  case  or  because 
it  is  recognized  in  such  a  place  and  worn  by  such  a  queen  or 
king,  but  because  it  is  being  valued  in  all  places  and  ages  and 
by  all  persons  appreciating  its  brilliancy,  beauty  and  endur¬ 
ance.  To  extract  the  essence  of  ethics,  law  and  divinity,  of  hu¬ 
man  salvation,  duty  and  morality ;  to  compress  and  express  these 
in  a  few  grand  verses ;  to  promulgate  them  on  a  most  solemn 
occasion  and  place ;  to  deliver  them  to  an  entire  people,  pre¬ 
pared  for  that  important  inauguration ;  to  declare  that  to  be  a 
pact,  an  organic  law,  the  national  constitution,  the  rule  of  con¬ 
duct  for  ever  and  aye ;  to  succeed  therein  after  a  struggle  of 
fifteen  centuries ;  then  after  another  struggle  of  2,000  years  to 
make  that  same  doctrine  the  universal  standard  of  conduct  for 
the  Occident  and  for  the  Orient ;  to  such  an  extent  that  a  civi¬ 
lized  society  without  that  organic  law  is  impossible,  unthink¬ 
able — that  is  the  wonder  of  history,  the  admiration  of  ages,  the 
import  and  the  significance  of  Mosaism  and  the  Decalogue.  It 
is  the  highest  development  of  the  leading  ideas  delivered  by  the 
divine  voice  to  human  conscience  and  reason,  from  the  begin¬ 
ning  of  time  to  this  day,  and  can  lead  only  to  higher,  further 
and  nobler  schemes  of  human  perfection  and  happiness.  This 
is  the  aspect  of  the  rational  conception  of  divine  revelation  and 
inspiration.  The  local,  narrow  Sunday-school  lesson  is  broad- 


REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION. 


213 


ened  and  expanded  to  a  world-teaching.  This  is  not  shrinking 
and  belittling  religion,  but  rendering  it  world-vast,  the  proper 
atmosphere  of  the  divine. 

As  the  biologists,  anatomists  and  physiologists  trace  the  struc¬ 
ture  and  the  capacity  of  the  human  body,  and  even  of  the 
mind,  throughout  the  entire  animal  kingdom,  finding  the  rudi¬ 
ments  of  the  human  species  distinctly  foreshadowed  and  out¬ 
lined  in  the  animality  of  the  lower  and  the  lowest  scale ;  ever 
developing,  unfolding  and  brightening  to  higher  forms  and  no¬ 
bler  functions,  repeating  and  describing  the  same  pattern  on 
new  cycles  of  creation,  but  each  cycle  higher  than  the  preceding 
one,  until  gradually  it  reaches  the  structure  of  man  and  his 
wonderful  brain,  the  shell  of  his  mind,  measuring  the  height  of 
the  stars  and  scanning  the  mysteries  of  Deity — and  none  but 
fools  finding  this  derogatory  to  divine  and  human  dignity ; 
even  so  is  there  no  derogation,  no  belittling  and  no  desecration 
to  assume  that  God  reveals  his  truths  to  man  through  his  con¬ 
science,  his  intelligence,  his  history,  in  developments  revealed  to 
great  minds,  as  the  different  historical  stages  and  mile  posts  of 
human  improvement.  This  mode  is  even  indicated  distinctly  in 
the  Pentateuch  itself:  Adam,  Noah,  Abraham,  Moses,  Eliahu, 
Isaiah,  Ezra,  Maccabeus,  in  Jewish  history,  what  else  are  they 
but  such  stages  and  mile  posts  ?  And  these  are  resumed  and 
continued  in  universal  history,  as  the  several  initiators  of  Chris¬ 
tianity,  of  Mohammedanism,  of  Protestantism,  of  liberalism, 
down  to  Luther,  Melancthon,  Lessing,  Kant,  Mirabeau.  This  is 
the  outcome  of  the  chain  of  reasonings  of  Prof.  A.  H.  Sayce, 
in  his  account  of  the  vast  results  of  his  investigations  into  the 
partly  deciphered  traditions  of  the  religions  and  the  culture  of 
ancient  Egypt  and  Babylonia,  here  reviewed  from  a  mere  bird's- 
eye  view.  We  shall  give  the  reader  some  literal  extracts  of  his 
book  for  verification.  But  first  let  us  see  by  way  of  contrast  the 
following  on  the  same  subject-matter. 

PEOF.  DELITZSCH’S  BABEL-BIBLE  CONTROVERSY. 

The  above  survey  and  analysis  covers  fully  and  entirely  a  con¬ 
troversy,  more  noisy  than  substantial,  of  late  raised  by  a  Profes- 


214 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


sor  of  Assyriology  at  the  University  of  Berlin  in  his  lectures 
there.1  These  lectures  have  little  or  no  other  sources  and  back¬ 
ground  than  the  material  treated  by  the  Oxford  Professor’s  book 
just  reviewed.  I  do  not  believe  that  the  Berlin  Professor  has 
deciphered  or  read  a  single  cuneiform  tablet  not  at  the  disposal 
of  the  Oxford  Professor.  But  the  latter  treated  his  subject- 
matter  with  wisdom,  tact  and  moderation,  and  therefore  he  did 
not  come  to  the  sensational  conclusions  of  the  former,  that  the 
Decalogue,  Monotheism,  the  Sabbath  and,  generally,  the  Mosaic 
Laws  are  a  mere  plagiarism  committed  upon  Hammurabi’s 
code.  Est  modus  in  rebus  of  an  infinitely  higher  order.  All 
that  code  may  show  is,  that  Babylonia  may  possibly  be  the  back¬ 
ground  of  Judaea,  but  the  Judaean  laws  are  and  remain  initia¬ 
tory,  creative  developments,  of  higher  and  purer  inspirations, 
suggestions  of  divine  genius,  the  dawn  of  which  may  be  traced 
back  to  earlier  stages  of  civilizaton.  The  Mosaic  institutions 
may  contain  embryonic  elements,  gathered  from  previous  legis¬ 
lative  structures,  collected,  sifted  and  shaped,  purified,  polished 
and  grandly  enlarged  with  originality  and  spontaneity,  formed 
into  a  body  of  laws,  and  handed  over  to  mankind  as  rules  of 
conduct,  as  “laws  and  statutes  which  man  should  realize  and 
live  by  them.”  That  is  what  criticism  can  claim,  and  nothing 
beyond  that.  Exactly  the  same  material  and  no  more  and  no 
other  documents  the  Berlin  Professor  has  used,  and  still  he  bold¬ 
ly  declared  the  God-idea,  Decalogue,  Sabbath  etc.,  the  bases  of 
the  present  society,  to  be  borrowed  from  Babylonia !  Whilst  we 
have  seen  it  proven  by  the  theory  of  ethical  and  mental  continu¬ 
ity  as  the  “divine  voice”  of  Supreme  Mind,  sounding  throughout 
the  icons  of  time  and  through  the  space  of  the  world,  and  inspir¬ 
ing  all  the  leading  geniuses  of  mankind  with  salutary  laws  and 
institutions.  What  different  conclusions  from  identical  premises! 

Let  me  be  plain:  I  have  carefully  studied  those  much-talked- 
about  Laws  of  Hammurabi  engraved  on  the  Stela  found  at 
Susa,  earlier  placed  at  Babylon,  at  Sippira  etc.  After  reading 
through  those  282  paragraphs  I  have  not  found  there  any  mate- 

’Professor  Friedrich  Delitzsch,  “  Babel  and  Bible,”  1902,  Leipzig. 


PROF.  DELITZSCH  S  BABEL-BIBLE  CONTROVERSY. 


215 


rial  for  either  Monotheism,  the  Decalogue,  nor  Leviticus,  19. ; 
no  material  for  religion,  ethics  or  charity ;  not  a  trace  is  there 
of  the  Sabbath,  the  Mosaic  equality,  the  liberal,  agrarian,  be¬ 
nevolent  or  free,  social  laws ;  nothing  of  the  Mosaic  democracy, 
freedom,  justice,  purity,  virtue,  mercy  and  morality.  That 
Code  is  all  and  ever  polytheistic,  superstitious,  cruel  and  harsh, 
savoring  of  Canaan,  its  despotism  and  foreign  conquest;  anx¬ 
ious  to  establish  order,  commerce,  industry,  wealth — for  the 
classes;  not  the  freedom,  morality  and  well-being  of  the  masses. 
With  an  iron  hand  it  suppresses  mutiny  and  rebellion ;  punish¬ 
ing,  all  alike,  as  Draco,  small  and  great  crimes  and  petty  misde¬ 
meanors,  by  fire,  iron  and  water,  with  cruel  ordeals  and  out¬ 
right  death.  There  are  there  very  few  points  of  matters  of  fact 
reminding  one  of  the  Pentateuch.  A  little  more  analogy  you 
may  find  with  Rabbinical  tradition.  All  you  may  discover  is 
a  certain  background,  of  similar,  neighborly  views,  customs,  peo¬ 
ples  and  countries,  Canaan  and  Babylon,  presupposing  just 
these  abominations,  abhorred  and  warned  against,  by  the  com¬ 
posers  of  the  Sacred  Writ.  The  similarity  of  and  the  distance 
between  Hammurabi’s  Code  and  the  Mosaic  one  is  about  the 
same  as  that,  between  a  shrewd,  plucky  barbarian  and  a  refined, 
moral  gentleman;  there  are  also  analogies,  incontestably — as 
between  a  monkey  and  a  man !  By  far  more  parallels,  mostly 
outward  and  formal,  Professor  Sayce  shows  up.  Still,  he  does 
not  charge  the  Mosaic  Code  with  plagiarism.  Such  parallelisms 
are  to  be  found  in  the  outward  forms  of  the  temples,  institu¬ 
tions,  priesthoods,  tithes,  sacrifices  in  Babylonia  and  Judaea. 
But  he,  as  Professors  Maspero,  Hommel,  Zimmern  and  others, 
acknowledges  that  the  spirit  is  vastly  different;  the  intellectual, 
theological  and  moral  caliber  of  Judaaea  is  infinitely  superior 
to  Babylonia.  Some  more  analogies  of  this  latter  sort,  Profes¬ 
sor  Sayce  claims,  may  be  found  in  Egypt.  There  the  moral 
element  is  much  stronger  than  in  Babylonia,  and  there  religion 
is  already  more  permeated  with  ethics.  Still,  it  holds  out  no  fair 
comparison  with  the  Sinaic  doctrines  and  the  Mosaic  institu¬ 
tions.  The  One  God,  in  spirit,  time  and  space,  making  for  holi- 


216 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OP  PENTATEUCH. 


ness1  and  all  the  vast  consequences  thereof,  are  lacking  there. 
Attempts  at  such  a  step  were  made  in  the  iSTile  country,  pos¬ 
sibly  on  the  Euphrates  also,  but  abortive  attempts  they  were.  It 
had  not  enough  of  the  pure,  stern,  prophetic  element  of  Judsea. 
Whilst  the  populations  sided  with  the  local,  racial,  established 
priesthoods,  polytheism  and  the  facile,  sensuous  ethics  of  each 
nome  and  temple.  That  simple,  salient,  grand  fact  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  and  Mohammedanism  hailing  from  Judsea,  not  Egypt  or 
Babylonia,  proves  conclusively  that  Judsea,  not  they,  possessed 
the  mettle  and  the  ferment  to  revolutionize  the  world,  that 
“from  Zion  issues  the  Law,  and  the  Word  of  God  from  Jerusa¬ 
lem.”  I  cannot  conceive  why  they  just  hit  upon  the  Hammu- 
rabian2  Code,  by  no  means  the  earliest,  as  the  original  of  the 
Mosaic  one,  except  on  the  score  of  a  sensation,  or  as  a  crude 
piece  of  fresh  Anti-Semitism.  The  claim  that  “the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  should  yield  its  place  to  Babylon’s  doctrines”  is  prepos¬ 
terous  and  ridiculous. 

And  now  comes  the  comical  part,  the  climax,  of  the  huge 
joke:  The  Berlin  Professor,  having  put  up  that  monstrous  and 
unscientific  hypothesis,  is  roughly  reminded  by  imperial3  and  by 
popular  murmurings  that,  on  disestablishing  the  Old  Testament, 
he  has  profoundly  shaken  and  shattered  the  Mew  Testament,  its 
superstructure,  also.  So  he  composes  his  face  and  quotes  single 
prophetic  passages,  torn  from  their  context,  where  those  fiery 
denunciations  of  vice,  oppression  and  shams  upbraid  the  neigh¬ 
boring  corruptions  of  Edom,  Moab,  Babylon  etc.  “Truly,” 
says  Professor  Delitzsch,  “that  is  a  battle  song,  Bedawin-like,  in 
thought,  style  and  word  .  .  .  These  and  hundreds  of  other  like, 
prophetic  passages  are  full  of  hatred  against  all  other  nations 
...  I  take  rather  my  refuge  with  him,  who,  living  and  dying, 
taught :  Bless  them  that  curse  you,  and  flee  to  God,  to  whom 
Jesus  taught  us  to  pray  .  .  .  God,  the  living  father  of  all.” 
But  the  Professor  forgot  that  this  God  is  the  God  of  the  Old  and 

'III.  M.,  19.2. 

’Hammurabi’s  Code  had  its  predecessors,  surely. 

3The  German  Emperor. 


PROF,  delitzsch’s  BABEL-BIBLE  controversy. 


217 


of  the  New  Testament,  not  of  Babylon,  not  of  India  or  Hammu¬ 
rabi  ;  that  the  God  of  Jesus  is  the  God  of  Israel ;  be  forgot  also 
that  Jesus  was  no  more  sparing  of  the  corruptions  and  hypocri¬ 
sies  of  his  times  and  his  neighbors  than  was  Joel,  Isaiah,  Jere¬ 
miah.  Either  of  that  school  of  prophets  burned  up  with  divine 
ire  against  the  vices,  wiles  and  shams  at  home,  just  as  at  Tyre 
and  Babylon,  whilst  at  the  same  time  they  were  brimful  and 
overflowing  with  the  sympathy  and  serene  humanity  pervading 
the  Mosaic  Code.  The  Berlin  Professor  plays  fast  in  Theology 
as  in  Archaeology ! 

I  have  not  seen  the  full  and  genuine  lectures  and  arguments 
of  the  Berlin  Professor,  nor  do  I  know  whether  he  has  not  just 
yesterday  discovered  some  new  cuneiform  Stela  or  tablet  which 
is  the  exact  original  of  the  Decalogue  or  of  the '19th  chapter 
of  Leviticus.  If  he  has  made  such  a  find,  let  him  produce  it 
promptly.  He  owes  it  to  himself  and  to  the  frowning  manes  of 
his  good  and  noble  father.1  The  burden  of  such  a  proof  lies  on 
him.  I,  for  one,  do  not  believe  that  such  a  Stela  has  been  dis¬ 
covered,  or  will  ever  be.  No,  the  times,  the  places,  the  popula¬ 
tions,  the  ethical  and  social  needs,  the  leading  factors,  the  entire 
environments  of  the  epoch  of  Hammurabi  are  vastly  different 
from  those  of  the  Exodus,  the  prophets  or  Ezra. 

No  doubt,  the  sound  intellectual  and  ethical  material  of  pre- 
Abrahamic  times  has  not  been  thrown  away.  No  doubt,  that  the 
best  of  that  has  been  preserved  and  utilized  in  the  great  reli¬ 
gious  creations  of  later  and  of  more  recent  ages ;  because,  as 
seen,  there  is  uninterrupted  continuity  of  human  thought,  nur¬ 
tured  and  suggested  by  divine  thought,  inspiration  or  revela¬ 
tion.  But  this  does  not  warrant  even  the  shadow  of  a  claim  that 

*With  whom  I  had  the  honor  to  be  on  very  cordial  terms  and  for  many 
years  in  frequent  correspondence.  The  late  Franz  Delitzsch  was  a  great 
scholar  and  a  good  man,  with  but  one  weak  point :  He  ardently  desired  the 
conversion — not  the  humiliation — of  Israel,  “  that  Israel  may  assist  in 
amending  certain  of  Christianity’s  Nictean  doctrines.”  “A  sacred  task 
which  the  Biblical  people  does  perform,  and  best  outside  than  inside  of  its 
surrounding  majorities,”  was  my  respectful  reply  to  him,  now  22  years 
ago,  in  Leipzig.  But  wre  have  it  now  to  do  with  Professor  Delitzsch,  the 
son  and  his  claim,  not  the  venerable  father. 


218 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


the  Decalogue,  Monotheism,  the  Sabbath  and  entire  Mosaism 
are  an  imitation,  a  copy  from  some  Babylonian  king  or  statute- 
book.  For  Babylonian  laws  could  not  possibly  suit  Judaea,  be¬ 
cause  each  people,  race,  age,  country  and  society  require  their 
own  legislation.  Indeed,  the  Pentateuch  warns  and  forewarns, 
again  and  again,  its  people  from  imitating  surrounding,  heathen 
institutions  and  customs,  ideas  and  ways ;  and  now  Professor 
Delitzsch  (the  younger,  of  course)  pretends  that  the  very  best 
Mosaic  doctrines  and  leading  institutions  are  borrowed  and  cop¬ 
ied  from  Babylonia?  That  is  preposterous!  Hor  must  we  for¬ 
get  the  distance  that  exists  between  ideas  uttered  by  single  sages 
or  philosophical  priests,  and  laws  enacted  by  rulers  and  legis¬ 
lators.  We  find  in  Egypt  and  in  Babylon  good  and  noble 
thoughts,  on  the  highest  topics  of  State,  religion  and  morality, 
uttered  by  single  men  of  genius ;  whilst  practical,  public  insti¬ 
tutions  and  laws  are  mostly  time-honored,  hoary,  venerable  cus¬ 
toms,  gradually  legalized ;  they  must  root  in  the  masses,  be  at 
their  level,  and  cannot  be  transferred  to  another  people  diamet¬ 
rically  opposed,  as  was  that  of  Judaea  to  Babylonia.  I  there¬ 
fore  dare  affirm  and  say  that  the  Mosaic  doctrines  and  legisla¬ 
tion  are  rather  in  salient,  deliberate  contrast  and  conscious,  in¬ 
tentional  opposition,  than  a  slavish  imitation  and  borrowing 
from  the  one-sided,  harsh,  polytheistic,  Hammurabian  Code. 
Occasionally  we  may  find  there  a  certain  parallelism ;  as  a  whole 
they  are  each  other’s  reverse.  Again  let  us  remember  that,  util¬ 
izing  the  old  and  evolving  the  new,  breaking  up  and  readapting 
previous  institutions  to  new  surroundings,  this  picking  out  of 
useful,  approved,  old  elements  and  blending  them  with  new  ma¬ 
terial  suitable  to  the  new  environments,  this  decomposition  and 
recomposition,  this  is  not  plagiarism,  this  we  may  retrace  in 
each  or  most  of  legislations,  this  ever  went  on,  on  the  mentioned 
principle  of  continuity  of  thought.  The  good  old  elements  are 
utilized,  the  effete  ones  are  removed,  the  new  is  added  and  all 
made  up  into  one  new  structure.  This  independent  renovation, 
adapation,  this  just  constitutes  originality,  creation,  divine  gen¬ 
ius. 

Fluegel’s  “  Humanity,  Benevolence  and  Charity  of  the  Pentateuch.” 


PROF,  delitzsch’s  BABEL-BIBLE  controversy. 


219 


I  trust  that  the  Berlin  Professor  will  reconsider,  agree  with 
and  assent  to  the  earnest  reasonings  here  unfolded,  showing: 
That,  in  spite  of  many  good  elements,  glimpses  of  noble,  gen¬ 
eral,  religious  and  moral  ideas,  Babylonia  was,  on  the  whole, 
steeped  in  the  superstitions,  the  cruelties,  the  despotism  and  the 
filthy  pracitces  of  Asiatic  polytheism ;  that  Anu,  Bel,  Mero- 
dach,  Istar,  Adad-Hebo,  Asari  and  Ea  were  not  the  compeers  of 
Ihvh-Elohim,  even  of  the  El-Elyon  of  Abraham ;  far  less  could 
they  compare  in  holiness,  morality,  benevolence  and  wisdom  to 
the  majesty  of  Ihvh  and  his  laws.  I  trust  that  the  Berlin  Pro¬ 
fessor,  upon  re-examining  the  Stela  of  Hammurabi  etc.,  will 
come  to  the  conclusion  that  Monotheism,  the  Decalogue,  the  Sab¬ 
bath  as  a  day  of  sanctification,  not  of  jollification,  the  Year  of 
Release  and  of  Jubilee,  as  the  epochs  of  restoration  and  reinte¬ 
gration  ;  that  freedom,  mercy,  justice  and  human  equality,  as 
the  bases  of  law;  that  solidarity,  charity  and  humanity,  love  thv 
neighbor  as  thyself- — as  the  social  base ;  that  “Holy  shall  ye  be, 
as  your  God  is  holy,”  to  be  the  aim  of  morality — all  that  the 
Berlin  Professor  will  agree  with  Professor  Sayce,  Maspero 
and  the  cordial  writer  of  these  pages,  to  be  originally  and  sa- 
liently  Mosaic,  Biblical,  the  sequel  indeed  of  former,  preliis- 
torical  periods,  but  the  higher  development  from  earlier,  by  far 
inferior,  ethical  schemes  and  institutions. 

How,  one  would  say:  But  in  my  Sunday-school  I  have  heard 
about  “thunder,  hailstorm  and  brimstone,  about  trumpets  and 
earthquakes  and  God  speaking  in  person”  etc. ;  must  I  forego 
all  that?  The  answer  is:  You  must  reconstruct  that,  you  must 
understand  this  as  a  man,  not  as  a  child,  and  that  will  render 
you  both  more  wise  and  more  religious.  The  Pentateuch  depre¬ 
cates  any  bodily  divine  revelation ;  the  Rabbis  assume  a  divine 
voice  on  Horeb.  They  everywhere  repudiate  miracles  as  a  nec¬ 
essary  proof  for  truth.1  The  great  Jewish  philosophers  all,  the 
Gabirols,  Albos,  Saadias,  Maimonides,  Iben  Ezras  etc.  plainly 
hint  “that  the  angel  between  the  Deity  and  man  is  reason  and 
conscience.”  Good  and  great  men  are  inspired,  inhaling  breath 

'See  Maimonides,  Introduction  to  Seder  Zeraim  nN'DOHB’  D'DID  pen  ^3 

iit6n  rod  toa'e  imtyy  ny  D'pnn  to 


220 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


from  the  very  Fountain  of  wisdom.  Revelation  goes  on  by  the 
mode  of  historical  development,  from  mind  to  mind ;  wise 
and  holy  minds  are  the  vehicles  of  divine  teachings  to  mankind. 
They  go  all  in  line,  continue  the  same  divine  thought,  take  up 
the  identical  divine  thread,  continue  it,  for  a  while,  a  few  inches 
farther,  and  hand  it  over  to  their  successors.  They  are  the  sa¬ 
cred  phalanx,  the  vehicles  of  providential  instructions,  forming 
the  great  stations  of  human  advance  in  science,  in  religion,  civi¬ 
lization  and  happiness.  Each  of  them  takes  up  the  thread  of 
that  eternal,  historic  revelation,  spins  it  on,  and,  dying,  hands 
it  over  to  his  heir  in  spirit,  dropping  on  him  the  Elijah-cloak 
and  disappearing  in  the  roseate  sky  of  immortality.  Whilst 
mankind  admires,  looks  up  and  calls  aloud:  “Father,  father, 
chariot  of  Israel,  vanguard  of  mankind!”  (II  Kings,  2.14.) 

“The  Thora  speaks  in  human  language,”  said  the  Rabbis,  just 
in  reply  to  such  popular  questions.  Reflect,  as  children  we  used 
to  ride  on  a  stick ;  later  on  we  rode  on  horseback ;  now  by  steam 
and  electricity ;  possibly  soon  we  may  ride  by  balloon ;  “Every¬ 
thing  has  its  proper  season,”  says  Ecclesiastes. 

Professor  Sayce  Continued.  Merodach  ,  Ea. 

We  have  in  part  surveyed  the  important  work  of  the  Oxford 
Professor,  and  at  the  same  time  examined  the  unwarranted 
affirmations  and  the  noisy  controversy  about  Babel-Bible  of  the 
Berlin  Professor.  We  have  until  now  had  Professor  Sayce 
speak  by  our  mouth,  as  passed  through  our  own  prism.  We 
shall  now  more  clearly  follow  up  the  results  of  his  research, 
and  then  quote  him  in  his  own  words,  in  order  to  give  the  reader 
an  opportunity  of  judging  by  himself  what  he  thinks  about  the 
influence  of  Egypt  and  Babylonia  on  the  Pentateuch,  of  the 
highest  importance  for  the  position  of  the  Biblical  religions. 

Professor  Sayce  finds  many  parallels  in  the  political,  social, 
mental  and  spiritual  activities  of  Babylonia  and  of  Judaea;  in 
their  doctrines,  views,  institutions,  holidays  and  worship ;  in 
their  theocracy,  priesthoods,  temples,  symbols,  sacred  outfits  and 
utensils.  As  the  Jerusalemite  Temple,  so  the  great  Babylonian 
one  of  Marduk  or  Merodach  had  two  courts,  two  symbolic  pil- 


PROFESSOR  SAYCE  CONTINUED.  MERODACH,  EA. 


221  ' 


lars  at  its  front  entrance;  a  basin  termed  “Sea”  resting  upon 
twelve  brass  oxen,  for  the  purification  of  the  priests,  one  altar 
of  sacrifice  and  another  for  incense.  The  temple  proper  was 
divided  into  a  holy  place  and  a  holy  of  holies.  It  contained  a 
mercy-seat,  a  chandelier,  a  table  with  12  shewbread,  a  Paruk- 
kah  or  curtain.  It  had  prophets,  priests,  tithes,  sacrifices ;  it 
knew  also  the  sacred  “kippur”  and  “qorban”  terms.  But  its 
contrasts  to  the  Moriah-Mount  were  by  far  greater  than  its  simi¬ 
larities  :  It  had  its  sacred  vestals  and  sacred  prostitution,  a 
hundred  gods,  male  and  female,  and  all  the  idolatrous  and 
grossly  sensuous  paraphernalia  ejected  from  Mosaism  and  the 
Moriah  Temple.  The  victorious  royalty  and  the  sacerdotal  caste 
of  Canaan-Babylonia  succeeded  partially  in  subordinating  all 
the  leading  gods  of  Nippur,  Lagas,  Eridu,  Sippara  etc.,  under 
the  supremacy  of  their  own  god,  Bel-Merodach,  giving  him  the 
x’ole  of  the  El-Elyon  of  Abraham.  Nay,  they  even  made  an 
attempt  at  monotheism,  by  conferring  on  Merodach  all  the 
names,  attributes  and  functions  of  the  chief  gods  of  Babylonia 
and  Chaldea.  Merodach  was  identified  with  Bel,  Istar  Anu, 
Ea,  Asari  and  the  other  great  gods  and  goddesses  of  their  pan¬ 
theon.  All  their  titles  and  powers  were  transferred  to  him,  he 
absorbed  and  subsumed  them  all.  He  was  in  prayer  and  wor¬ 
ship  addressed,  and  in  some  hymns  expressly  designated  as  the 
Only  One,  the  Supreme,  the  Creator  of  the  universe  and  the 
gods.  He  ruled,  at  the  side  of  king-craft  and  priestcraft,  hypoc¬ 
risy,  licentiousness  and  necromancy,  abominated  and  ejected  by 
Mosaism.  Merodach  was  at  last  fully  identified  with  Asari  and 
his  father,  Ea,  of  Eridu.  But  Monotheism  would  thrive  in 
Babylonia  as  little  as  in  Egypt.  Earlier,  Ea  was  conceived  as 
the  Creator,  Friend  and  Teacher  of  man;  as  the  Greek  Prome¬ 
theus,  a  potter  who  had  formed  man  out  of  clay,  had  shaped 
him  in  his  own  image,  civilized  him,  given  him  laws  and  taught 
him  the  useful  arts.  Ea  was  the  god  of  the  deep,  who  had  come 
from  abroad,  the  west  of  Arabia,  the  western  shore  of  the  Eu¬ 
phrates,  Ur  of  Chaldea  (the  birthplace  of  Abraham?),  who 
daily  appeared  with  his  ship,  emerged  from  the  Persian  Gulf 
at  Eridu,  to  teach  man  and  improve  him.  Eridu  was  the  first 


222 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


land  rescued  from  the  original  abyss,  the  dreary  swamps  of  the 
sea.  Eridu  is  claimed  by  Professor  A.  H.  Sayce1  to  be  “an  ab¬ 
breviation  of  Eridug  or  Eri-dugga,  ‘the  good  city,’  in  Sume¬ 
rian.”  But  it  may  remind  also  of  the  Hebrew,  erez,  earth,  Erde, 
terra,  tarra.  It  is  the  crude,  mythic  version  and  back¬ 
ground  of  Genesis,  1.2 :  “The  earth  was  chaotic  and  confused, 
darkness  was  upon  the  abyss  and  the  Divine  Spirit  was  hover¬ 
ing  on  the  waters.”  Remember,  again,  Ihvh  is  also  termed  in 
the  Bible  III,  Ilia  and  Eheieh.  II  M.,  3.14,  reads:  “Eheieh,  or 
Eliih  sent  me  to  you.”  Isaiah,  26.4,  reads:  “For  Ilia,  Ihvh,  is 
the  rock  of  eternity”  (worlds).  Further,  Ihvh  is  described  in 
Genesis,  2.7,  as  the  moulder  or  potter  of  man,  and  in  Jeremiah, 
10.15,  as  the  Yozer,  (clay) -moulder,  of  all.2  Many  divine  at¬ 
tributes  given  in  the  Pentateuch  to  God  were  in  Eridu  lavished 
on  Ea.  Whilst  the  moon-god,  Sin,  has  no  analogy  whatever  with 
Ihvh,  whose  identity  is  claimed  by  some  critics.  Thus  an  effort 
was  made  to  invest  in  Babylonia  Merodach  with  divine  unity. 
Possibly  in  Southern  Chaldea  it  was  Ea  who  assumed  that 
honor  of  subsuming  the  leading  world-powers,  and  for  a  time, 
more  successful,  was  termed  Ea  the  god,  or  the  gods  (Elohim). 
Again,  Merodach,  identified  as  Bel-Merodach-Ea,  was  assumed 
by  the  Babylonians  as  that  supreme,  leading  Deity.  Hence  we 
may  surmise  that  attempts  at  Monotheism  had  taken  place 
there. 

Ea,  In,  Eiiih,  Continued. 

Let  us  elucidate  this  highly  interesting  point,  though  seem¬ 
ingly  dry  archaeology  and  metaphysics.  The  layman  may  skip 
it,  but  it  will  pay  the  student  to  read  it  twice.  It  will  clear  up 
many  a  puzzle.  We  may  fairly  and  justly  assume  that  a  move¬ 
ment  towards  Monotheism  was  going  on  in  the  civilized 
part  of  the  ancient  world,  perhaps  since  the  advent  of 
Abraham,  or  his  double,  Zarathustra,  and  the  Highest- 
God  or  El-Elyon-idea.  We  see  the  Babylonian  priests,  as 

'In  a  letter  to  me. 

’'jnStf  n\is*— D'D?iy  mv  rC  rua  ’a— dtnh  ns  rC  nm— Nin  ban  nxv  o 
oa^x 


EA,  IH,  EHIH,  CONTINUED. 


223 


the  Egyptian  Pharaoh,  Khu-n-Aten,1  made  an  effort  to  identify 
their  own  deity  with  the  chief-gods  of  Mesopotamia ;  but  they 
did  not  succeed,  just  as  little  as  did  the  King  of  Egypt.  The 
priesthood  of  each  nome  and  province  in  either  country  claimed 
this  privilege  for  their  own  local  god.  Kow  it  is  probable  that 
the  same  effort  was  made  in  Eridu  to  have  Ea  assume  that  part, 
as  the  El-Elyon,  the  Supreme  of  Chaldea,  with  all  the  powers 
and  attributes  of  the  chief  Babylonian  gods,  he  to  subsume  and 
subordinate  them  all.  But  this  trial  miscarried  in  Chaldea  with 
Ea,  just  as  that  of  Osiris  in  Egypt  and  Merodach  in  Babylon. 
It  was  more  successful  with  Moses  and  Israel,  because  there  the 
rudiments  of  Monotheism  lingered  still  since  Abraham  and  the 
other  Patriarchs.  There  it  was  consummated  in  the  concept  of 
Ihvh-Elohim,  purporting  that  the  many  gods  or  divine  powers 
of  the  pagan  nations  were  all  subsumed  and  superseded  by  the 
Only  One  God,  Ihvh.  The  Babylonian  Ea  may  be  but  the  cor¬ 
rupt  pronunciation  of  the  Hebraic  Ihvh-Eliih.  Only  here  it  has 
a  rational  sense ;  it  combines  in  its  small  compass  both  Being  and 
Eternity,  existence  in  past,  present  and  future,  occupying  in  its 
spirituality  the  eternity  of  time  and  of  space ;  an  admirable 
generic  designation  of  the  Supreme  Being  holding  in  the  lap 
matter,  time,  space  and  eternity;  this  Being  is  alone  Elohim ; 
Ihvh  is  Elohim.  It  is  all  in  vowels,  without  any  alloy  of  conso¬ 
nants,  viz,  it  is  purely  spiritual,  all-embracing  eternity.  After 
a  long  struggle  the  Monotheistic  idea  was  thence  transplanted 
to  Arabia  and  Judaea.  In  Judaea  the  struggle  against  polythe¬ 
ism  lasted  nearly  a  thousand  years.  With  Ezra  and  Kehemiah 
only  idolatry  was  finally  eliminated,  and  pure,  rigorous  Mono¬ 
theism,  with  the  Mosaic  Law,  became  the  norm.  Monotheism, 
the  Ihvh-religion,  having  gained  there  a  firm  foothold,  was  car¬ 
ried  back  to  Chaldea  as  Ea-religion,  the  moulder,  teacher,  friend 
and  lawgiver  of  man  and  the  Creator  of  all.  Thus  is  Ea  of 
Eridu,  the  pale  reflection  of  Ihvh-Ih-Ehih  of  Arabia  and  Judaea. 
Ihvh  and  Monotheism  did  not  originate  in  Babylonia,  and 

'See  Sayce,  “Religion  of  Egypt,”  p.  114-35,  “Amen-Hotep,  IV. 


224 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


thence  introduced  into  Judaea,  as  claimed  by  the  Berlin  Pro¬ 
fessor  ;  this  is  contrary  to  all  evidence,  for  Babylonia  and  Chal¬ 
dea  continued  idolatrous;  the  Jews  alone  represented  Monothe¬ 
ism.  Hence  the  hearth  where  its  flames  were  entertained  was 
Sinai  and  Moriah,  not  the  Ea  or  the  Merodach  temple. 

This  would  best  explain  the  many  striking  parallelisms  be¬ 
tween  the  Mosaic  Ih,  Ihvh,  Ehih,  and  the  Eridu  Ea ;  the  Baby¬ 
lonian  Bel-Merodach-Ea  identification  also  would  he  explained. 
We  shall  now  understand  II  M.,  3.13 :  “Moses  spake  to  Elokim, 
Behold,  I  come  to  the  Children  of  Israel  announcing  to  them 
that  the  God  of  your  fathers  has  sent  me  to  you,  and  when  they 
ask,  What  is  his  name  ?  what  shall  I  answer  them  ?  And  Elo- 
him  said, Ehih  (I  who  shall  ever  be, the  everlasting  Being), Ehih 
sent  me  to  you  .  .  .  This  is  my  name  in  eternity  and  this  from 
generation  to  generation  .  .  .  This  is  Ihvh,  the  God  of  your 
fathers,  the  God  of  Abraham,  of  Isaac  and  of  Jacob.”1 

Let  us  well  remember  that  Mosaism  does  not  claim  to  have 
invented  either  Monotheism  or  the  faith  in  the  One  Supreme 
Being.  On  the  contrary,  it  states  and  insists  upon  the  fact  that 
they  are  of  hoary  origin,2  that  Ihvh  identifies  and  subsumes  all 
the  gods  ;3  that  there  are  no  several  supreme  rulers,  that  all  the 
powers  are  unified  in  the  one  Supreme  Power.  That  is  the  ac¬ 
tual  meaning  of  Ihvh-Elohim,  ever  in  juxtaposition,  and  imply¬ 
ing  that  what  the  heathen  world  termed  the  gods,  Ha-Elohim, 
that  is  subsumed  under  the  one  Ihvh.  How  what  means  Ihvh? 
Already  the  Rabbis  correctly  render  it  by :  Being,  Supreme  Ex- 

XII  M.,  3.14-15  rPHN  ,DD'T'N  rPHN  ,TH  *1HP  '"I3T  HT1  'W  HI 

nvp  rnn  ,rpn  mrp  ,rpnx  -itrx 

*i.  m.,  4.26.  mrr  Dtpa  Nipt*  brim  rx 

3Elohim,  root  is  El,  Eloh,  Elohim,  power,  divine  power,  all  the  divine 
powers.  It  is  apparently  dating  from  prehistoric  antiquity,  and  originally 
meant  all  the  divine  powers.  Gradually  Monotheism  took  the  place  of 
polytheism ;  then  Elohim  began  to  be  mostly  constructed  with  a  singular 
verb  and  combined  as  Ihvh-Elohim,  namely,  that  the  Hebraic  Ihvh  sub¬ 
sumes  alone  all  the  gods,  Ihvh-Elohim.  A  few  times  we  find  Elohim  in  the 
old  sense,  the  heathen  gods;  it  is  also  sometimes  in  the  Bible  constructed 
with  a  plural  verb,  a  remnant  of  its  prehistoric  significance,  the  gods  in 
polytheism,  the  only  one  God  in  the  Judosan  world. 


EA,  IH,  EHIH,  CONTINUED. 


225 


istence,  Essence  of  All,  Being  Undifferentiated,  the  Creative 
Essence  and  Cause,  containing  the  germs,  principles,  forces  and 
vitality  of  all  the  later  differentiated,  single  beings  of  the  uni¬ 
verse.  “Existence,”  “Being,”  is  the  first  correct  definition  of 
Ihvh.  The  next  is  but  a  logical  amplification  thereof.  The  Rab¬ 
bis  as  correctly  derive,  etymologically,  the  word  Ihvh  from  hill, 
hvli,  ihih,  a  compound-word,  denoting  past-present-future.  Thus 
Ihvh  is  the  Being,  Undifferentiated,  Existence,  the  Essence 
and  reality  of  all  that  pervades  eternity,  past,  present  and  fu¬ 
ture.  Again,  Ihvh  occupies  likewise  the  infinity  of  space :  He 
is  the  space,  the  room,  the  occasion  and  the  cause  of  the  universe. 
Ihvh  is  the  Essence  of  existence  in  the  eternity  of  time  and 
the  infinity  of  space.  As  such  the  Rabbis  call  the  Deity,  Place, 
Space,  Maqom.  They  call  him  also  Shamaim,  the  heavens 
or  world-room ;  both  are  well-known  names  of  the  Only  One 
Deity  in  the  Talmud  and  the  Medrashim.  They  are  attributive 
names,  divine,  metaphorical  epithets ;  for  actual  names  the 
Deity  has  none.  Ihvh,  or  the  abbreviated  Ih,  comes  nearest  as 
attribute  to  his  ineffable  Essence,  the  Being,  the  Ocean  of  Exist¬ 
ence.  It  is  designated  as  Place  or  Space  of  the  Universe  by 
Maqom,  Shamaim  ;  as  Power,  Gaburhj  as  love,  Rachmana.  The 
Deity  is  often  also  alluded  to  in  the  Bible  as  Maori,  Meona,  and 
as  Zur,  habitaculum,  residence,  refuge,  rock,  foundation;  as 
the  space,  cause,  providence  and  protector  of  the  universe  and 
its  creatures. 

The  Supreme  Being  is  again  alluded  to  in  Scripture  as  Aloha- 
qedem,  God  of  the  East,  or  of  antiquity,  the  One  professed  and 
adored  of  Old  in  the  East,  later  supplanted  and  forgotten,  and 
at  last  reintroduced  by  Moses  as  the  God  of  the  Hebraic  Patri¬ 
archs  of  Ur,  on  the  western  shore  of  the  Euphrates,  the  seat  of 
the  Chaldean  civilization.  He  is  remembered  as  the  “residence 
(protector)  of  antiquity,”  “shield  of  salvation,”  “Rock  of  the 
faithful,”  in  the  farewell  address  of  the  dying  liberator  (V  M., 
33.27).  So  the  Psalmist  (90.1)  strikes  up  his  hymn:  “O 
Lord,  a  (protecting)  residence  thou  hast  been  unto  us  from  gen¬ 
eration  to  generation.” 


226 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


When  we  examine  these  epithets,  we  shall  find  that  we  have 
sufficient  historical  data  to  verify  them.  In  hoar}-  antiquity,  in 
the  far-off  East,  we  find  the  Deity  described  by  the  sages  and 
thinkers,  with  these  very  same  colors  and  attributes.  The  Su¬ 
preme  Deity  is  described  in  the  Vedas,  the  Upanishads  and  the 
Vedanta  as  Brahman,  The  Being,  Alone  Self-Existent;  and  in 
the  Sacred  Books  of  Parseeism  the  Supreme  is  denominated  as 
Zrvana  Akarana,  the  Infinite  in  Time  and  Space.  When  we 
further  discard  the  poetical  tropes  and  the  popular  extrava¬ 
gances  of  the  Greek  and  Roman  poets,  we  find  the  Supreme 
Deity  defined  as  the  Reality  and  Essence  of  All,  Infinite  in 
Time  and  Space,  just  as  Ihvh-Elohim  is  in  the  Hebraic  Scrip¬ 
tures.  What,  then,  is  the  difference  between  the  Mosaic  and  the 
non-Mosaic  God-conception?  It  is  this:  With  the  Hindu, 
Parsee  and  Greek  sages,  the  Only  One,  Supreme  Deity  was  rec¬ 
ognized  and  admitted,  in  secret,  in  theory,  but  veiled,  even  neg- 
nized  and  admitted,  in  secret,  in  theory,  but  veiled,  even  neg¬ 
lected  and  overlooked  in  practice  and  publicly.  The  sages  had 
one  God-idea,  the  masses  had  various  other  God-ideas.  The 
people  cared  little  for  such  an  abstruse,  incomprehensible,  inef¬ 
fable  Supreme  One,  out  of  its  grasp  and  transcending  its  ex¬ 
periences.  His  attributes,  therefore,  were  popularly  material¬ 
ized,  personified,  individualized  and  assumed  as  single,  con¬ 
crete,  independent  divine  beings,  much  nearer  to  the  human 
senses,  and  these  were  symbolically  represented  as  deities. 
Hence  came  polytheism  with  idolatry.1  So  was  Baal  and  As- 
toreth  in  Phoenicia  and  Canaan ;  Bel  or  Mardukh  in  Babylonia ; 
Assur  in  Assyria;  Ammon-Ra,  later  Osiris,  and  Serapis  (Osiris- 
Apis)  in  Egypt;  Zeus,  Diespiter  and  Jupiter"  in  the  Greek  and 

‘Maimonides  assumes  that  the  heavenly  bodies,  sun,  moon  and  stars  were 
first  idolized.  This  may  have  been  so  with  the  vulgar.  The  priests  and 
learned  appear  rather  to  have  personified  all  the  natural  phenomena  and 
powors,  and  taught  them  as  individualized  attributes  and  gods.  Such  are 
the  10  Sephiroth  of  the  Qabbala  (see  “  Philosophy  and  Qabbala”). 

’Diespiter  is  often  mentioned  by  Horace,  identical  with  Jupiter  or  Zeus- 
pater ;  Zeus  is  derived  from  Deus,  day,  the  light-god ;  possibly  it  is  akin  to 
Zebaoth,  God  of  the  Heavonly  Hosts,  Zeus,  Zeos,  Zebaoth.  See  Horace, 
Carminum,  Liber  III.,  II.  :  “  Ssepa  Diespiter  neglectus  incesta  addidit 

integrum."  The  latin  Jupiter,  Jo-pater,  is  of  same  derivation. 


EA,  IH,  EHIH,  CONTINUED. 


227 


Roman  world.  That  represented  God  the  Master,  force,  rigid 
law.  Anu  was  the  ether,  the  infinity  of  space,  Shamaim ;  whilst 
Ea  symbolized  love,  wisdom  and  goodness,  the  mercy-side  in 
the  godhead.  So  the  Rabbis  distinguish  Ihvh  as  love  and  Elo- 
him  as  justice.1  Thus  in  the  Gentile  world  the  attributes  of  the 
Only  One  Deity  were  broken  asunder  by  the  popular  prism  and 
worshiped  as  so  many  different  deities.  Mosaism  alone  succeed¬ 
ed,  after  a  long  struggle  indeed,  to  unite  again  these  scattered  rays 
into  one  divine  focus  and  to  have  that  focus  accepted  by  priest 
and  layman,  learned  and  people,  openly  declaring  that  Ihvh 
only  is  Elohim,  that  in  Him  reside  all  the  divine  forces  and  that 
His  chief  attribute  is  Ihvh,  Ih,  Ehih,  the  true  ancient  God  of 
the  Universe,  of  the  East,  of  Antiquity,  Elohi-Qedem,  El-Olam. 
A  dim,  enfeebled  ray  of  this  pure  monotheism  elaborated  in 
Arabia  and  in  Judsea,  wandered  to  Chaldea  as  the  doctrine  of 
Ea,  and  to  Babylonia  as  that  of  Marduk,  or  Bel-Merodach-Ea. 

In  one  word,  the  Hebraic  monotheism,  the  Ihvh  or  I  It  reli¬ 
gion,  is  not  the  theology  of  Babylonia  transplanted  to  Judaea. 
Ho;  it  is  the  ancient  religion  of  the  East,  for  long  there  neg¬ 
lected  and  forgotten,  then  renovated  in  Arabia  and  Judaea  by 
Abraham,  Moses  and  Israel,  there  accepted  as  the  State  religion, 
and  gradually  reintroduced  into  Babylonia  as  the  Bel-Merodaeli 
Cult ;  into  Chaldea  as  Ea-Cult,  and  into  Egypt  as  that  of  Khu- 
n-Aten  or  Amen-Hotep  IV.  The  Egyptian  Aten  may  well  be 
identified  with  the  Vendante  Atman,  the  Self,  Brahman,  the 
Only  One  Being,  and  the  Chaldean  Ea  has  its  best  etymology 
in  the  Hebrew  Ehih,  I-shall-he,  Eternity.  Thus  monotheism  and 
Ihvh  are  not  inventions  of  Babylonia  or  Eridu,  transplanted  to 
Judaea  as  Mosaism.  Ho;  just  the  contrary.  Monotheism 
and  Ihvh  are  gray,  ancient  conceptions,  hailing  from  the  far 
East,  gradually  obscured,  neglected  and  forgotten  there  by  the 
masses,  on  account  of  some  wave  of  barbarism  and  war  inter¬ 
vening;  preserved  only  by  some  forlorn  priest  or  philosopher  of 
India,  Egypt  or  Babylonia.  But  these  doctrines  found  later  a 

'Of  the  Agadists  and  mystics  the  two  divine  faces  or  aspects,  that  of 
justice  and  that  of  love. 


228  HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 

stronger  hold  on  Arabia,  Judaaea  and  Kanaan.  There  they  were 
renovated,  restored  and  delivered  to  Israel  as  the  Mosaic  doc¬ 
trine  of  Monotheism  and  Ihvh,  still  claiming  no  innovation,  but 
simple  reintroduction.1  Then,  taking  deep  roots  in  its  new 
home  of  Judaea,  it  redounded  back  to  the  East  and  South,  Ara¬ 
bia,  Babylonia,  Chaldea,  Egypt,  as  a  feeble  echo  from  a  far-off 
past  and  from  neighboring  Judaea.  The  fact  is  that  Ea  has  no 
meaning  whatever;  on  the  contrary,  Bel,  Anu,  Merodach  etc. 
have  their  root  and  sense  in  Semitic ;  whilst  all  the  Biblical  di¬ 
vine  names  have  an  attributive  sense  in  Hebrew.  Such  is  Ih, 
Ihvh,  Shadai,  El,  Elohim  etc. ;  hence  is  the  Chaldean  Ea  an 
echo  from  Judaea,  not  vice  versa.  Ea  is  the  weakened  sound 
from  Judaean  Ih,  Eltih,  Ihvh;  it  is  to  mean:  Eternal  Being, 
if  monotheism  had  been  established  there,  but  it  was  not,  so  it 
remained  a  local  god. 

Professor  Sayce  Continued. 

Let  us  return  now  to  Professor  Sayce’s  work.  He  does  not 
jump  at  conclusions;  he  justly  sees  there  but  a  weak  and  timid 
attempt,  and  an  abortive  attempt,  to  introduce  monotheism,  but 
of  little  avail.  Some  priestly  philosophers  could  say  what  they 
pleased,  the  people  remained  unmoved ;  polytheism,  witchcraft 
and  rottenness  remained  intact.  Perhaps  it  was  but  mere  per¬ 
sonal  ambition  of  the  new  dynasty  to  advance  itself  by  ad¬ 
vancing  its  god,  and  under  the  guise  of  centralized  monotheism 
to  introduce  centralized  monarchical  despotism.  Everything  re¬ 
mained  as  before.  Maybe  that  caused  Abraham’s  removal  from 
there  (Genesis,  12.1).  Divine  service  consisted  mostly  in  in¬ 
cantations  and  propitiations  of  the  many  gods.  The  priest  con¬ 
tinued  to  be  less  of  a  teacher  than  of  a  sorcerer  and  soothsayer. 
Religion  consisted  more  in  mystic  practices  than  in  virtuous 
deeds,  enlightened  thinking  and  noble  meditation.  The  several 
priesthoods  of  the  nomes  and  the  divers  masses  and  tribes,  of 
different  national  origins  and  compositions,  the  several  vassal- 
states  of  North  and  Souh  Mesopotamia,  its  leading  provinces 
and  temples,  had  each  their  own  supreme  god  with  his  hier- 


II.  M.,  6.2-9. 


PROFESSOR  SAYCE  CONTINUED. 


229 


archy.  Each  one  claimed  supremacy  and  had  his  own  Enneads 
and  Triads  (nine  and  three  gods  united  into  one)  with  a  host 
of  subordinate  gods  and  daimons,  good  and  bad  genii,  and  all 
these  gods  and  goddesses  were  far  from  being,  as  the  Biblical 
Ihvh:  ‘‘Holy,  loving  justice  and  truth,  enthroned  on  high  and 
looking  down  benignly  upon  the  poor,  the  stranger,  the  widow 
and  the  oppressed.”  Even  the  chief  God,  Merodach,  was  but  a 
human  hero,  a  Heracles  or  Perseus,  a  giant  fighting  the  mon¬ 
sters  of  the  world-giant,  Tiamat,  symbolizing  power,  intelligence 
and  order  conquering  Chaos  and  Confusion.  Morodach,  of  the 
city  of  Marad  (rebellion?),  may,  after  all,  be  but  the  Biblical 
Himrod,  apotheosized ;  he  who  had  made  an  end  to  social  dis¬ 
order  and  violence  by  establishing  his  dominion  with  law  and 
order.  Thus,  Professor  Sayce  repeatedly  remarks  and  con¬ 
cludes:  That  between  the  religion  and  the  ethics  of  Jerusalem 
and  those  of  Babylonia  there  was  about  the  same  difference  as 
that  between  man  and  the  ape.  Man  and  ape  have  a  great 
many  things  in  common.  Still  the  distance  between  them  is  im¬ 
mense,  not  only  in  degree,  but  in  kind.  Merodach,  you  see, 
plainly,  is  a  myth,  a  composite  fiction  of  the  priests,  exalting 
for  their  own  benefit  their  own  cult,  temple  and  god  above  the 
others ;  purifying  them  indeed,  still  leaving  enough  alloy  to 
show  their  origin  in  rank  polytheism,  astrology  and  mythology. 

Otherwise  is  the  Ihvh-conception,  the  pure  Mind,  the  Sub¬ 
lime  Creator,  the  One,  the  Author  of  the  Decalogue,  the  Holy 
God,  who  bids  us :  “Be  holy,  for  holy  am  I who  identifies  reli¬ 
gion  with  intelligence  and  virtue,  who  subsumes  human  duties 
under  the  grand  social  rule :  “Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as 
thyself placing  practical  religion  and  worship  in  purity,  sym¬ 
pathy,  justice  and  morality.  Such  a  God-idea  uplifts  the  Tem¬ 
ple  from  a  palace  of  priest  and  king  to  the  sanctuary  devoted  to 
the  culture  of  the  holy,  the  perfect  and  the  divine.  That  makes 
the  priest  an  agent  of  the  Deity,  yea,  his  earthly  associate,1  for 
the  propagation  of  the  true  and  the  good.  That  conceives 
Deity  as  father  of  Israel  and  of  mankind;  both  are  the  object 

bTa'p’n’^  finiti'  Agada  and  Qabbala  and  Vedanto. 


230 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


of  his  solicitude ;  perfection  and  holiness  is  their  common  goal 
and  the  divine  is,  both,  the  origin  and  the  last  consummation 
of  human  improvement.  “Between  these  two  concepts” — says 
Professor  Sayce  (page  478) — “lies  that  deep  gulf  of  difference 
which  separates  the  religion  of  Israel  and  that  of  Babylonia, 
as  a  whole ;  the  one  is  monotheistic,  the  other  polytheistic.”  But 
I  am  not  ready  to  agree  with  the  Professor  that  “King  Hammu¬ 
rabi  was  a  contemporary  of  Abraham,  that  he  is  identical  with 
the  Biblical  Amraphel  (Genesis,  14.1),  and  that  Babylonian 
law  has  influenced  the  Mosaic  legislator.”  At  the  utmost 
the  latter  may  have  known  it  as  existing  in  a  neighboring- 
country,  and  went  in  parallel  with  it  in  a  few  rare  cases,  but 
opposed  it  in  vastly  many  more;  since  his  aim,  object  and  start¬ 
ing  point  were  quite  other  ones  than  those  of  Hammurabi. 

Professor  A.  Id.  Sayce  Verbatim. 

The  Oxford  Professor  says  (248)  :  “One  of  the  chief  lessons 
of  the  past  centuries  is,  that  of  continuity.  Throughout  the 
world  of  nature  there  is  no  break,  no  isolated  link,  in  the  long- 
chain  of  antecedent  and  consequent ;  and  still  less  is  there  in 
the  world  of  thought.  Development  is  but  another  name  for 
the  continuity  which  binds  the  past  to  the  present  with  stronger 
fetters  than  that  of  destiny.” 

(259)  :  “Long  before  Abraham,  Canaan  was  a  Babylonian 
province,  obeying  Babylonian  laws,  reading  Babylonian  books, 
and  writing  in  Babylonian  characters.  With  that  went  Baby¬ 
lonian  culture  and  religion.  Abraham  was  a  Babylonian.  The 
Mosaic  Law  shows  clear  evidence  of  that  influence,  as  do  the 
earlier  chapters  of  Genesis.” — Yes,  but  that  influence  is  by 
way  of  contrast,  rather  than  of  assent.  The  Mosaic  Genesis  and 
the  Mosaic  Law,  starting  from  monotheism,  one  holy  god,  and 
a  free  democracy,  necessarily  arrived  at  other  conclusions,  as 
the  Professor  soon  and  frankly  admits. 

Critics  often  forget  stern  facts,  viz:  We  must  not  overlook 
that  Abraham  left  Ur  and  Babylon  and  Haran  just  on  account 
of  the  inferior  civilization,  the  corruption  of  Mesopotamia. 
(Genesis,  12.1)  :  “Go,  go!  away  from  thy  country  and  thy  birth- 


PROFESSOR  A.  H.  SAYCE  VERBATIM. 


231 


place  .  .  .  There  I  shall  make  thee  great  and  in  thee  shall  all 
the  nations  of  the  earth  be  blessed.”  So  we  see  there  was  here 
a  braking  away  from  Babylonian  ways,  not  an  imitation  of 
them ;  a  new  principle  with  a  new  culture  and  new  institutions ! 
The  earlier  chapters  of  Genesis,  too,  distinctly  prove  this  new 
phase  of  Abrahamic  culture  and  so  does  the  later  Mosaic  Law. 
Its  basis  is  monotheism,  its  object  is  a  free,  moral  people  and 
its  polity  is  democracy,  not  conquest,  priestcraft,  kingcraft  and 
polytheism.  Babylon  and  Judaea  are  far  more  contrasting  than 
parallelizing  each  other,  and  the  Lawgiver  is  ever  warning  his 
hearers :  “Do  not  act  as  the  surrounding  nations,  deeds  which 
are  the  abomination  of  Ihvh.”  Nevertheless,  the  Oriental  civi¬ 
lization  is  the  background  of  Judaea,  since  it  was  not  everywhere 
rotten  and  in  many  respects  worthy  of  imitation. 

(261)  :  “The  god  of  Nippur  was  El-lil,2  the  lord  of  the 
ghost-world,  dwelling  beneath  the  earth  or  in  the  air,  master  of 
spells  and  incantations,  to  keep  the  evil  spirits  at  bay  and  turn 
away  their  malice  .  .  .  Eridu,  on  the  contrary,  was  the  seat  of 
the  god  of  culture.  Ea,  whose  home  was  in  the  deep,  in  the 
Persian  Gulf,  had  here  his  temple.  There  he  taught  the  ele¬ 
ments  of  civilization,  writing  down  for  man  laws,  a  moral  code 
.  .  .  that  prevented  disease  and  death.  He  was  the  author  of 
the  arts  of  life,  all-wise,  creating  and  benefiting  man.  He  had 
made  man,  like  a  potter,  out  of  clay ;  to  him  therefore  man 
looked  for  guidance  and  help.” 

In  Ea  I  find  some  traits  worthy  of  the  Deity.  Hence  we  find 
also  such  features  in  the  delineation  of  the  God  of  Mosaism. 
Ihvh-Elohim  there  is  unique,  creator,  lawgiver,  father  of  man, 
guiding,  teaching,  benefiting  him,  and  warning  him  not  to  go 
in  the  ways  of  the  elohim,  the  gods  and  the  ways  of  Babylon, 
Nippur  etc.  The  Mosaic  Lawgiver  ever  has  the  abominations 
of  Mesopotamia  before  his  eyes  and  deprecates  them  as  “ab¬ 
horred  and  extirpated  by  Ihvh.” — Ihvh  is  the  very  opposite  of 
the  Elilim  of  Nippur.  I  therefore  ventured  to  suggest  that 

'See  my  “Mosaic  Genesis”  and  my  “Biblical  Patriarchs”  on  this. 

2I  prefer  El-lil,  night  god,  or  little  god,  as  Augustus  and  Augustulus, 
little  Augustus ;  the  Pentateuch  often  mentions  these  Elilim. 


232 


HUMANITY.  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


possibly  the  nobler  Ihvh  or  Yah-religion  of  Judaea  entered  the 
Babylonian  South,  Eridu,  and  created  there  the  Ea-Cult  al¬ 
luded  to. 

(263)  :  “The  myth  which  spoke  of  Ea  as  rising  from  the 
Persian  Gulf  and  bringing  the  elements  of  culture  to  his  people, 
points  to  the  maritime  intercourse  of  Babylonia  with  Arabia, 
India  (and  Canaan,  too)  ;  foreign  ideas  made  their  way  into 
the  country,  and  it  may  be  that  the  Semites,  who  exercised  such 
a  powerful  influence  upon  Babylonia,  first  entered  through 
Eridu.” 

If  so,  it  may  be,  as  suggested,  that  its  Ea  cult  is  but  a  feeble 
reflex  from  the  Ihvh  cult  of  Judaea,  and  instead  of  making  Baby¬ 
lonia  the  doubtful  nursery  of  monotheism  why  not  assume  the 
contrary,  that  it  received  it,  mutilated  though,  from  Canaan  ? 
ISTor  is  it  impossible  that  it  was  a  light-wave  coming  over  the 
Indian  Ocean,  Veadnta-ideas  radiating  thereto. 

(273)  :  “The  divergent  etymologies  assigned  to  the  name 
of  Merodach  by  the  theologians  of  Babylonia,  show  that  they 
were  quite  as  uncertain  about,  it  as  we  are,  in  regard  to  its  ori¬ 
gin  and  significance.” 

Possibly  Genesis,  10.7-8,  gives  the  historical  clue  to  it.  It 
is  “Nimrod,  the  mighty  hunter  before  Ihvh,”  the  conqueror  and 
founder  of  the  first  great  empire  of  Babel,  Ereck,  Akkad,  Nine¬ 
veh.”  Another  legend  gives  his  birthplace  to  be  Marad,  which 
may  mean  that  his  origin  was  in  rebellion  (Marad),  that  he  was 
a  foreign  conqueror,  a  son  of  Kush,  a  Canaanite,  a  Hamite.  In 
all  the  myths  about  him,  the  nucleus  of  that  constellation  points 
to  his  having  been  a  hero,  a  conqueror,  a  king,  founder  of  a  dy¬ 
nasty,  perhaps  identical  with  Gilgamesh,  the  center  of  the  great 
Babylonian  Epic. 

(273)  :  “The  theology  of  Babylonia  is  thus  an  artificial 
product,  combining  two  wholly  different  religious  conceptions, 
one  overlaid  by  the  other;  at  a  very  early  period  .  .  .  the  be¬ 
liefs  of  Sumer  received  a  Semitic  interpretation.” 

That  the  original  Babylonian  polytheism  received  later  a  Se¬ 
mitic  infusion  of  Abrahamic  monotheism,  such  a  hypothesis 
would  adjust  difficulties,  straighten  all,  and  explain  that  hence 


SOUL  AND  HEREAFTER. 


283 


came  the  many  broken  ethical  chips  and  ritualistic  elements 
common  to  J udsea  and  Mesopotamia. 

Soul  and  Hereafter. 

(275)  :  “In  Egypt  it  was  the  Ka  (the  double,  the  shadow 
or  soul  of  man)  which  linked  the  other  world  with  living  man. 
In  Babylonia  it  was  the  Zi,  the  spirit,  the  life,  synonymous 
with  motion,  force  and  energy.”  Zi  and  Ka  closely  resemble 
the  Hebraic  synonyms.1 

(293)  :  “A  great  contrast  exists  between  the  Babylonian  and 
the  later  Egyptian  view  of  man’s  imperishable  part  and  its  lot 
in  the  other  world.  This  difference  of  view  results  from  a 
further  difference  in  the  view  taken  of  this  present  life.  To 
the  Egyptian  the  present  life  was  but  a  preparation  for  the  next 
one.2  Hot  only  man’s  spiritual  elements,  but  also  his  body, 
would  survive  beyond  the  grave.  It  was  otherwise  in  Baby¬ 
lonia.  Ho  traces  of  mummification  are  to  be  found  there  .  .  . 
The  thoughts  of  the  Babylonian  were  fixed  rather  on  this  world 
than  on  the  next  ...  It  was  in  this  world  that  he  had  his  rela¬ 
tions  with  the  gods  .  .  .  and  it  was  here  that  he  was  punished 
or  rewarded  for  his  deeds  .  .  .  They  were  too  much  absorbed 
in  commerce,  trade  and  wealth  to  have  leisure  for  theories  about 
the  invisible  world.  The  elaborate  map  and  the  speculations 
about  the  other  world,  as  in  the  sacred  books  of  Egypt,  would 
have  been  impossible  for  the  Babylonian.” 

Curious !  That  double  phenomenon  witnessed  in  the  above- 
mentioned  countries  of  the  Euphrates  and  of  the  Hile  we  find 
in  Judaea  too,  the  sober  realism  of  the  Sacred  Writ,  on  one 
hand,  and  the  spiritualism  of  its  expounders,  as  in  Mishna, 
Gomara,  Agada,  Apochryphae  and  Moralists,  on  the  other. 
When  more  acquainted  with  Egypt  and  Babylonia,  we  may  well 
find  out,  that  both  were  realistic  and  ideal  at  successive  ages. 
Still,  it  is  not  proven  whence  these  phases  started,  whether  from 
Egypt  and  Babylonia  to  Judaea,  or  the  opposite  way.  It  is  just 
as  possible  that  the  speculative  movement  came  from  the  Jordan 

-'n  ,D"n  tfs:  ,n» m  ,nn 

2Just  as  in  the  Jewish  Agada  and  the  Christian  legends  on  hereafter. 


234 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


to  its  neighbors.  The  Pentateuch  has  hardly  any  distinct  traces 
of  a  hereafter.  The  Talmud  and  the  Moralists  are  full  of  it,  as 
in  Egypt.  Still  the  Talumd  claims  the  soul’s  immortality  and 
the  bodily  resurrection  to  be  Biblical,  in  Pentateuch,  Prophets 
and  Hagiographs. 

(303)  :  “The  high  plane  retained  by  woman  in  Babylonian 
society  would  of  itself  have  been  proof  that  Semitic  culture  had 
there  been  engrafted  on  that  of  an  older  people,  even  if  the 
monuments  had  not  revealed  to  us  that  such  was  indeed  the 
fact.”- — That  is  the  position  Pentateuch,  Prophets  and  Moral¬ 
ists  assign  to  women,  all  the  sequel  of  monetheism:  One  God, 
one  race,  one  family,  one  right  and  duty. 

(359)  :  “The  Semite,  though  he  moulded  the  religion  of 
Babylonia,  could  not  transform  it  altogether.  The  Sumerian 
element  of  the  population  was  never  extirpated  and  probably 
remained  little  affected  by  Semitic  influence.  That  witchcraft 
and  necromancy  had  flourished  there  is  a  proof  of  this.  The 
state-religion  was  compelled  to  recognize  and  lend  it  its  sanc¬ 
tion  ...  It  is  instructive  to  consider  what  contrast  there  was 
in  that  respect  between  the  Babylonians  and  the  Israelites. 
Witchcraft  and  necromancy  Avere  practiced  also  in  Israel,  but 
there  they  were  forbidden  and  suppressed.  Babylonian  religion 
could  not  repudiate  its  origin  and  parentage  .  .  .  The  names 
of  the  gods  testified  that  the  people  and  their  religion  were 
alike  mixed  .  .  .  Hence  the  early  beliefs,  legends,  folklore  and 
ritual  from  the  non-Semitic  past.” — All  this  goes  to  show  hoAV 
uncritical  it  is  to  assume  that  Mosaism,  monotheism,  the  teach¬ 
ings  of  the  Decalogue,  of  Leviticus  19,  of  Deuteronomy  etc. 
were  importations  from  Babylonia. 

Creation,  Babylonian  and  Hebraic. 

(395)  :  “Herein  lies  the  great  contrast  betAveen  the  Baby¬ 
lonian  and  the  Hebraic  conception  of  the  creation.  The  He¬ 
brew  cosmology  starts  from  the  belief  in  one  God,  beside  whom 
there  is  none  else,  Avhcther  in  the  orderly  world  of  today,  or  in 
the  Avorld  of  preceding  chaos.  On  its  forefront  stand  the  words : 
“In  the  beginning  God  created  the  heaven  and  the  earth.” — 


CREATION,  BABYLONIAN  AND  HEBRAIC. 


235 


There  was  chaos,  but  chaos  had  no  existence  apart  from  God  in 
its  absolute  matter.  The  deep,  too,  was  there,  but  it  was  neither 
the  impersonation  of  Tiainat,  nor  the  realm  of  Ea.  The  breath 
of  the  One  God  brooded  over  it,  awaiting  the  time  of  creation 
.  .  .  when  the  breath  of  G,od  should  become  the  life  of  the 
world.  The  elements,  indeed,  of  the  Hebrew  cosmology  are  ail 
Babylonian,  but  the  spirit  that  inspires  the  Hebrew  cosmology 
is  the  antithesis  of  that  which  inspires  the  cosmologies  of  Baby¬ 
lonia.  Between  the  polyetheism  of  Babylonia  and  the  monothe¬ 
ism  of  Israel  a  gulf  is  fixed  which  cannot  be  spanned.” 

That  the  elements  of  the  Mosaic  Genesis  or  cosmology  are 
Babylonian  is  far  from  being  a  settled  matter,  and  if  so,  they 
are  of  older  date  than  that  of  Jeremiah,  Hezekiah  and  Moses; 
they  belong  to  antiquity,  to  prehistoric  monotheistic  times,  the 
times  of  the  Ancient  God  of  the  East,  Elolii-Qedem. ,  frequently 
alluded  to  in  the  Pentateuch,  not  later,  polytheistic  Baby¬ 
lonia.  As  we  have  now  new  historical  material  in  hieroglyphic 
and  cuneiform  script,  older  than  Moses  and  Abraham,  even  so 
we  may  tomorrow  make  some  new  finds  there,  in  Egypt,  India, 
China  or  elsewhere,  with  new  information.  In  comparing  the 
Mosaic  with  the  Babylonian  traditions  on  creation,  the  first,  cou¬ 
ple,  Paradise,  Deluge  etc.,  we  are  rather  inclined  to  assume 
that  there  existed  traditions  from  earlier  antiquity  than  that  of 
both  the  Jordan  and  the  Euphrates  regions,  and  that  from  such 
originals  each  has  taken  its  materials,  independently ;  which  ma¬ 
terials  each  shaped  and  construed,  as  independently,  according 
to  its  own  genius,  its  starting  point  and  its  final  object  in  view. 
And  in  this  respect  we  must  accord  the  palm  of  victory,  the 
decided  moral  and  intellectual  superiority,  to  the  Mosaic  Gene¬ 
sis  or  Cosmology,  over  the  Babylonian  one;  and  why  so?  Pro¬ 
fessor  Sayce  has  hit  the  nail  on  the  head,  because:  “The  spirit 
that  inspires  the  Hebrew  cosmology  is  the  antithesis  to  that  of 
Babylonia;  because  there  is  monotheism  and  here  is  polythe¬ 
ism  ;  there  is  wisdom  and  holiness  of  Ihvh,  and  here  is  the  fatal¬ 
ism  and  brute  force  of  Bel ;  and  between  Ihvh  and  Bel  a  gulf  is 
fixed  which  cannot  be  spanned.” 

Fluegel’s  “Humanity,  Benevolence  and  Charity  of  the  Pentateuch.” 


236 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


(Ibid.,  482)  :  “The  Supreme  Baalim” — Professor  Sayce 
continues — “of  the  South  Arabian  inscriptions  must  have  been 
of  Babylonian  origin.  Their  name  and  character  are  derived 
from  Sumerian  Babylonia  .  .  .  Arabian  and  West-Semitic  Sa- 
baism  (star-worship),  must  have  been  the  result  of  the  contact 
with  Babylonian  civilization  ...  a  contact  which  made  Ur  and 
Harran  to  be  the  centers  of  the  worship  of  the  Moon-god.  In 
Canaan  is  the  Supreme  Baal  (the  Lord)  the  Sun-god,  instead 
of  the  Moon-god  .  .  .  There  was  a  period  in  the  history  of 
Babylonian  religion  when  the  Sun-god  was  supreme  .  .  .  The 
solar  element  of  Merodach  threatened  to  absorb  his  human 
kingship  (the  Biblical  ISTimrod ?).  It  is  just  this  phase  in  the 
history  of  Babylonian  theology  that  we  find  reflected  in  the 
theology  of  Canaan.  Baal  has  passed  into  the  Sun-god  and  his 
characteristics  are  those  of  the  Sun-god  of  Babylonia  .  .  . 
Phoenician  tradition  stoutly  maintained  that  the  ancestors  of  the 
Canaanitish  people  had  come  from  the  Persian  Gulf.” 

(484)  :  “The  Moon-god  of  I  Jr  is  addressed  in  a  hymn  almost 
monotheistic  in  tune,  as  Supreme,  creator,  father,  omnipotent. 
ITe  has  no  rival  among  the  other  gods.”  Each  and  every  deity 
was  considered  supreme  and  unique  before  conquest  and  amal¬ 
gamation  introduced  polytheism,  mixed  peoples  and  worships. 

Israel's  God-and-Moralita'-Idea. 

Professor  Sayce  seems  to  entertain  the  opinion  that  the  one- 
god-idea  of  Israel  has  for  its  background  and  forerunner  the 
Moon-god  of  Ur,  Harran,  Canaan  and  Babylonia,  and  brings  in 
connection  with  that  even  Sinai.  I  do  not  think  the  point  well 
taken.  The  fact  is,  each  of  the  leading  gods  of  the  diverse  coun¬ 
tries  was  originally  conceived  by  its  priesthood  and  special  wor¬ 
shipers  as  the  only  one,  supreme,  creator  etc.  Whilst  the  sub¬ 
ordinate  gods  or  genii  were  his  satellites,  agents  or  forces  of  na¬ 
ture.  Every  clan,  country  and  people  had  thus  its  own  Su¬ 
preme  One.  But  when  such  a  country,  tribe  and  people  were 
subjugated,  their  god,  too,  was  so,  and  had  to  yield  to  the  suprem¬ 
acy  of  the  god  of  the  conqueror.  The  simple,  practical  fact  of 
being  conquered  proved,  in  a  popular,  flagrant  way,  that  the  god 


Israel’ s  god  -  and-mortality-  idea. 


237 


was  not  supreme,  and  he  had  to  yield  the  scepter  to  the  god  of 
the  victor.  Again,  a  conquering  people  had  an  interest  to  dis¬ 
arm  and  conciliate  the  hierachy  of  the  subjugated  tribes.  Hence 
it  introduced  its  own  god  as  the  suzerain,  and  allowed  the  dei¬ 
ties  of  the  conquered  to  stand  and  continue  as  secondary  pow¬ 
ers.  Thus  by  the  concession  of  both  parties,  the  divine  suprem¬ 
acy  was  shifted  from  one  god  to  another ;  and  sometimes  the 
victorious  party  allowed  the  god  of  the  vanquished  to  stand  on 
terms  of  parity,  even  as  before,  and  thus  plurality  of  gods,  poly¬ 
theism,  arose.  So  Baal,  the  Master;  Anu,  the  heavens;  Ea,  the 
god  of  the  deep ;  Thum,  the  Chaos  etc.,  arose,  each,  at  first,  in 
his  own  region,  the  only  one  and  supreme.  But  after  a  larger 
dominion  was  by  arms  welded  out  of  the  debris  of  several  small 
ones,  the  god  of  the  victor  took  the  supremacy.  So  was  Mero- 
dach,  Nimrod  of  the  Bible,  here  as  yet  soberly  and  prosaically 
designated  as  a  Kushite  hunter  and  conqueror,  invested  by  the 
halo  of  posterity  and  of  time,  with  divine  supremacy,  at  Baby¬ 
lonia,  and  gradually  in  all  its  neighboring  countries  under  his 
own  and  his  successors’  sway.  At  first  the  other  gods,  Baal, 
Sin,  Anu,  Ea,  Asari  etc.  were  allowed  to  continue  side  by  side 
with  him ;  soon  as  subordinates,  as  genii ;  and  lastly  an  effort 
was  made  to  coalesce  all  into  one ;  all  were  fused  and  united  into 
Baal-Merodach,  with  an  attempt  at  making  them  all  but  attri¬ 
butes  of  Merodach,  and  thus  establishing  monotheism  at  Baby¬ 
lon.  But  as  all,  even  religion,  was  ruled  by  conquest  and  force, 
not  by  reason  or  conviction,  so  all  fell  asunder  and  submitted, 
with  the  change  of  the  leading  nation ;  Babylon  yielded  to  Nine¬ 
veh,  to  Ecbatana,  to  Persepolis,  to  Macedonia;  even  so  Bel- 
Merodach  had  to  yield  his  throne  to  the  victor.  Israel  was  the 
only  nation  that  did  not  change  his  god  according  to  the  issue 
of  battles.  In  victory  or  in  defeat,  in  Goshen,  Shiloh,  Samaria, 
Tirzah  or  Jerusalem,  the  prophets  taught  the  Supreme  Being 
as  God.  So  gradually,  the  Ihvh-God-idea  became  dominant  and 
universal  with  the  later,  spreading,  higher  Christiant.iy  and  Mo¬ 
hammedanism.  This  explains  why  those  leading  gods  of  poly¬ 
theism  are  so  differently  delineated  at  different  historical  ep¬ 
ochs;  soon  as  Supreme,  Only  One, Creator,  Eternal,  Immutable; 


238 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


and  soon  again,  as  subaltern  genii,  mere  agents  and  messengers 
of  some  other  Supreme  god ;  under  the  emblems  of  the  Sun-disk, 
or  the  Moon,  or  yonder  star  etc.  This  shows  why  Merodach, 
Sin  or  Ea  are  often  depicted  so  closely  alike  to  the  God  of  the 
Bible,  Ehih,  Ik.  They  were  real  attempts  at  monotheism; 
the  descriptions  of  Ea  in  Eridu  comes,  apparently,  closest  to  it, 
but  they  were  only  attempts,  and  abortive  attempts,  too ;  the 
respective  country,  region,  temple  and  priesthood  being  con¬ 
quered,  the  nation  yielded  and  accepted  another  Supreme  as 
their  own,  hence  polytheism  and  hypocrisy  in  the  Heathen 
Church.  With  the  new  god  came  in  a  new  polity  and  ethics. 
Whenever  holiness,  truth  and  wisdom  have  to  bend  the  knee  be¬ 
fore  force  and  the  issue  of  battles,  religion  and  morality  are 
wrecked,  and  selfishness  and  hypocrisy  flourish.  The  rules  of 
conduct,  of  such  time-serving,  shifting-sand  religions  and  cha¬ 
meleon-gods  can  never  become  pure  and  refined ;  because  such 
deities  and  churches,  ever  having  brute  force  and  arms  as  their 
background  and  their  basis,  they  ever  recurred  to  them,  not  to 
reason  and  justice,  holiness  and  perfection.  The  morality  of 
Baal  and  Merodach  therefore  could  never  come  up  to  that  of 
Ihvh.  The  issue  of  battles  ever  decided  the  destiny  of  the 
dynasty  and  of  the  god ;  showing  that  force,  and  not  wisdom, 
truth  and  right,  are  their  ultima  ratio.  Israel  not  yielding  his 
conscience  to  the  chances  of  force  and  battle,  had  alone  the  op¬ 
portunity  in  3,500  years  to  elaborate  the  highest  idea  of  man, 
family  and  society;  of  God,  justice  and  morality.  The  Baby¬ 
lonian  Ea  and  the  Egyptian,  priestly  Osiris  and  their  polity  are 
their  weak  reflection,  the  nearest  approach  to  that  ideal,  as  the 
moon  is  to  the  sunlight.  We  return  to  Prof.  Savce: 

(487)  :  “The  dark  background  of  magic  and  sorcery  dis¬ 
tinguished  and  disfigured  the  religion  of  Babylonia  up  to  the 
last  .  .  .  That  Sumerian  element  continued  in  the  Babylonian 
people.  It  was  never  eliminated.  Behind  the  priest  lurked 
the  sorcerer1  .  .  .  hence  the  exaggerated  importance  attached 
to  rites  and  ceremonies  .  .  .  and  the  small  space  occupied  by 

‘This  was  the  case  mostly  everywhere,  rooting  in  the  mystic  element  of 
man  and  the  credulity  of  the  masses. 


Israel’s  god- and- morality-idea. 


239 


the  moral  element  in  the  official  Babylonian  faith.  Of  morality, 
as  an  integral  part  of  religion,  there  is  little  evidence,  not  even 
as  much  as  in  the  doctrines  of  Osiris  in  Egypt,  though  the  moral 
element  was  not  altogether  wanting  therein.” 

We  believe  this  will  suffice  to  show  the  solid  drift  of  the  argu¬ 
ment,  and  the  unequivocal  trend  of  the  researches  of  the  distin¬ 
guished  Professor  of  Oxford,  viz,  that  my  estimate  of  his  im¬ 
portant  work  is  correct  and  that  his  view  coincides  with  that  of 
these  pages.  I  have  occasionally  ventured  on  minor  points  to 
express  a  different  opinion  from  his,  but  on  the  whole,  I  feel 
happy  that  his  weighty  opinion  fully  corroborates  mine,  ex¬ 
pressed  in  this  treatise  concerning  the  position  of  Mosaism  with 
respect  to  other  doctrines,  long  ago  known  or  lately  discovered. 
Professor  Sayce  is  a  man  of  great  erudition,  fully  consonant 
with  theology,  archaeology  and  history,  and  a  leading  master  in 
Egyptology  and  Assyriology.  He  has  had  at  his  command  all 
the  new  and  the  old  materials  involved  in  our  theme,  he  is  at 
home  on  the  iSTile  and  on  the  Euphrates,  as  he  is  in  Glasgow 
and  in  Oxford,  and  though  he  conjectures  and  assumes  that  the 
Mosaic  legislation  and  institutions  may  have  as  a  far-off  back¬ 
ground  the  entire  civilization  of  Babylonia,  Assyria,  Egypt,  Ca¬ 
naan,  nevertheless,  he  decidedly  opines  that  the  leading  traits 
of  Mosaism,  the  one-God-idea,  the  ethics  etc.  of  monotheism, 
holiness,  man’s  spirituality,  the  holy  Sabbath,  holy  human  life 
with  its  purity,  truth,  charity  and  morality,  are  indigenous  and 
original  to  the  sacred  soil  of  the  Bible,  of  Judaea,  not  to  the  Eu¬ 
phrates  or  Hammurabi,  the  Canaanitish  conqueror  and  Baby¬ 
lonian  lawgiver. 

Formal  Similarities  and  Essential  Contrasts  Between 
Babylonia  and  Judaea. 

Whilst  Professor  Sayce  heartily  acknowledges  the  great  dis¬ 
crepancy  of  doctrines  between  the  religions  of  Jerusalem  and  of 
Babylon,  he,  nevertheless,  is  inclined  to  overrate,  I  think,  the 
influence  of  the  latter  over  the  former.  In  his  interesting  chap¬ 
ters  on  “Sacred  Books  and  Temple  Ritual,”  he  points  out  a 
great  many  apparent  similarities  between  the  temples,  the  views. 


240 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


the  worship,  the  priesthood  etc.,  of  the  two  countries  and  con¬ 
cludes  (page  478)  that:  “Apart  from  this  profound  distinction 
(of  monotheism  and  polytheism),  the  cult  and  ritual  have  more 
than  a  family  relationship.  Customs  and  rites  which  have  lost 
their  primitive  meaning  in  the  Levitical  Law  find  their  expla¬ 
nation  in  Babylonia.  Even  the  ecclesiastical  calendar  of  the 
Pentateuch  looks  last  to  Babylonia  and  the  age  of  Hammurabi. 
It  cannot  be  an  accident  that  the  latter  was  the  contemporary  of 
Abraham,  ‘born  in  Ur  of  the  Chaldeans.’  The  Mosaic  Law 
must  have  drawn  its  first  inspiration  from  the  Abrahamic  age, 
modified  and  developed  though  it  may  have  been  in  the  later 
centuries  of  Israelitish  history.”  Much  less  sober  and  reserved 
are  other  Assyriologists.  They  speak  boldly  of  borrowing  and 
copying,  and  of  the  necessity  of  “shifting  the  religious  center 
from  Judaea  to  Babylonia.”  We  shall  therefore  quote  from  Pro¬ 
fessor  Sayee’s  work  some  more  passages  with  the  analogies  and 
parallels  alluded  to,  and  these  will  show  that  their  import  is 
hugely  exaggerated,  and  that  sound  criticism  cannot  but  render 
as  its  final  verdict  that  Abraham  started  indeed  from  the  Chal¬ 
deans,  but  expressly  in  order  to  begin  in  Canaan  a  new  phase 
of  civilization,  his  own  great  ethical  era,  not  Hammurabi's,  the 
final  outcome  of  which  initiative  was  Mosaism.  They  will  show 
that  for  every  one  trifling,  formal  similarity,  we  shall  find  ten 
striking  essential  differences  between  Jerusalem  and  Babylon; 
just  as  the  parallelisms  and  contrasts  between  civilized  man  and 
savage,  structural  identities  and  intellectual  antithesis.  We  con¬ 
tinue  our  extracts  from  Professor  Sayce’s  work : 

(358)  :  “Babylonia  possessed  an  organized  official  religion, 
a  combination  of  heterogeneous  elements.  It  had  its  sacred 
books,  but  different  from  those  of  the  Egyptians.  The  Egyp¬ 
tians  lived  rather  for  the  future  life  than  the  present,  and  their 
books  were  Books  of  the  Dead,  to  guide  them  through  the  next 
world ;  whilst  the  cares  of  the  Babylonian  centered  in  the  pres¬ 
ent  life.” — This  may  explain  why  the  Pentateuch  contains  so 
little  about  the  hereafter;  whilst  Talmud  and  Agada  are  so 
much  concerned  with  resurrection,  immortality,  last  judgment, 


CONTRASTS  BETWEEN  BABYLONIA  AND  JUDiEA. 


241 


purgatory,  hell  and  paradise.1  To  the  Psalmist  and  the  Baby¬ 
lonian  the  next  world  was  a  land  of  shadows,  dreary  and  dark, 
disagreeable  to  dwell  in:  “The  dead  do  not  praise  Ih”  (Ps.,  115. 
17),  similar  verses  by  the  scores  there. 

(410)  :  “The  official  canon  was  collected  together  from  all 
sides  .  .  .  Most  of  the  great  sanctuaries  probably  contributed 
to  it.  There  were  books  of  incantations,  of  hymns  and  prayers 
to  the  gods  .  .  .  Babylonia  never  succeeded  in  absorbing  the  re¬ 
ligious  cults  of  the  other  sanctuaries  .  .  .  and  that  prevented 
the  rise  of  monotheism  .  .  .  The  hymns  went  together  with  the 
magical  ritual,  incantations,  charms  etc.,  and  belong  to  different 
ages,  periods  and  sanctuaries,  containing  poems,  war-songs, 
spells,  and  philosophical  addresses  to  the  gods”  .  .  . 

(412)  :  “On  the  festival  of  the  New-Year  the  services  in  the 
Temple  of  Bel-Merodach  was  opened  by  a  hymn  closing  with: 
Show  mercy  to  the  City  of  Babylon  ...  To  thy  Temple  in¬ 
cline  thy  ear  .  .  .  Grant  the  prayers  of  thy  people  .  .  . 
(413)  :  On  the  second  of  Nisan  the  priest  went  down  to  the  Eu¬ 
phrates,  at  the  first  hour  of  the  night,  in  his  robes,  uttering 
prayers.” 

That  reminds  of  the  river  ceremony  ( Tashlich )  on  the  Jew¬ 
ish  New  Year.  In  Babylonia,  too,  the  New- Year  varied,  from 
Nisan  or  spring  time  to  the  fall  season,  Tishre.  The  New-Year 
was  considered  as  a  day  of  judgment  ( Iom  ha-din).  Here  is  an¬ 
other  similar  hymn:  (415)  “Direct  the  law  of  the  multitudes  of 
mankind  .  .  .  Thou  art  eternal  righteousness  .  .  .  Thou 
art  of  faithful  judgment  .  .  .  Thou  knowest  what  is  right  and 
what  is  wrong  .  .  .  Wickedness  has  been  cut  down  .  .  .  Judge 
supreme  thou  art  .  .  .  Purify  and  illumine  the  king,  the  son 
of  his  god,  cleanse  him,  illumine  him,  release  him  from 
ban”  .  .  . 

(417)  :  “Like  the  Hebrew  Psalms,  their  hymns  express  the 
belief  that  sin  is  the  cause  of  calamity  and  suffering,  and  these 
can  be  removed  by  penitence  and  prayer.  But  whereas  the 
Hebrew  knew  but  one  God  .  .  .  the  Babylonian  was  distracted 


hapn  ,oirnj  ,py  p 


242 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


as  to  what  particular  deity  he  had  to  appeal  to  .  .  .  There 
were  moral  sins  and  ceremonial  sins,  even  involuntary  sins  .  .  . 
and  all  were  alike  and  equally  punishable,  sin  of  ignorance  as 
sin  with  deliberate  intent.” — (421)  :  “O  Lord,  cast  not  away 
thy  servant  who  is  overflowing  with  tears ;  take  him  by  the 
hand !  .  .  .  The  sins  I  have  sinned  turn  them  to  blessing  .  .  . 
My  transgressions,  may  the  wind  carry  away !”  Babylonian 
penitential  psalms  remind  of  our  Middle  Age  “Poetans.” 

(448-9)  :  “The  temple  of  the  god  was  the  center  and  glory 
of  every  great  Babylonian  city.  The  Babylonian  states  had 
been,  at  the  outset,  essentially  theocratic.  Their  ruler  had  been 
a  high-priest  before  he  became  a  king,  and  to  the  last  he  re¬ 
mained  the  vice-gerent  and  adopted  son  of  the  god.  Around  the 
temple  the  city  had  grown  and  become  a  state  .  .  .  The  culture 
of  Babylonia  was  with  good  reason  traced  back  to  god  Ea 
.  .  .  The  place  occupied  in  Assyria  by  the  army  was  filled  in 
Babylon  by  the  priesthood.  The  temple  was  the  oldest  unit  in 
the  civilization  of  Babylonia.” — All  these  features  are  charac¬ 
teristic  also  of  Jewish  history  and  communal  life. 

(453)  :  “In  the  tower  or  Ziggurat  (of  a  Babylonian  temple) 
we  must  see  a  reflection  of  the  belief  that  this  earth  is  a  moun¬ 
tain  whose  highest  peak  supports  the  vault  of  the  sky  .  .  . 
Later  the  Ziggurat  began  to  consist  of  seven  stories,  dedicated 
to  the  seven  planets.” — The  Jews  had  no  artificial  Ziggurat, 
but  natural  mounts,  as  Moriah,  Sinai,  Karmel.  The  number 
seven  is  sacred  there,  too;  seven  week  days,  seven  Release  Years 
form  a  Jubilee  Year,  seven  yearly  festivals  etc. 

(454)  :  “The  temple  entered  with  a  great  outer  court,  900 
feet  in  breadth  and  over  1,150  in  length  .  .  .An  arcade  ran 
round  its  interior,  supported  on  columns  .  .  .  and  two  larger, 
detached  columns  stood  on  either  side  of  the  entrance.  In 
Babylon  a  second  court  opened  out  of  the  first,  devoted  to  wor¬ 
ship  .  .  .  Six  gates  pierced  the  walls.  Then  came  the  platform 
of  the  original  temple.  There  was  the  Ziggurat,  the  house  of 
the  foundation  of  heaven  and  earth,  with  seven  stages,  one  above 
the  other  ...  A  winding  ramp  led  upwards  on  the  outside 
connecting  the  stages.  In  the  seventh  stage  was  the  chamber  of 


CONTRASTS  BETWEEN  BABYLONIA  AND  JUDT5A. 


243 


the  god.  It  contained  no  image,  only  a  golden  conch  and  a 
golden  table  for  the  shew-bread.  Hone  but  a  woman-prophetess 
was  allowed  to  enter  it.  To  her,  god  Bel  revealed  himself  at 
night  and  delivered  his  oracles.” 

Some  slight  similarities  the  Temple  of  Herod  may  have 
had  with  this  description.  Two  courts,  an  arcade,  two  front 
pillars,  a  sanctuary  and  a  Holy  of  Holies,  on  a  level,  no  Zig- 
gurat,  no  seven  stages ;  but  in  the  Holy  of  Holies  there  was  a 
small  stone,  called  foundation-stone  ( Eben  Shethia) , upon  which 
the  high-priest,  on  Atonement  Day,  placed  his  fire-pan  with 
incense.  The  Holy  of  Holies  symbolizing  the  universal, 
boundless  space  pervaded  by  the  invisible,  infinite  Deity,  was 
an  empty  space,  no  mercy-seat,  no  couch,  no  table  of  shew-bread 
there1  and  no  prophetess.  Once  yearly  on  the  Atonement  Day, 
the  high-priest  entered  it  and  made  there  his  confession  of  sin; 
nothing  miraculous.  It  was  an  empty  space,  without  even  the 
Ark  of  the  Covenant  and  the  Cherubim. 

(456)  “In  the  Ziggurat  only,  the  deity  came  down  from 
heaven  in  spiritual  guise.  In  the  chapels  and  shrines  at  its  feet, 
images  were  numerous.  There  the  multitude  worshipped  and 
the  older  traditions  of  religion  remained  intact.  Around  the 
Ziggurat  were  the  temples  dedicated  to  the  leading  gods  and  to 
Merodach  himself,  with  his  golden  image,  a  table  of  shew-bread 
and  a  Parahkha,  or  mercy-seat  .  .  .  The  innermost  sanctuary 
was  known  as  Du-azagga,  the  Holy-Hill.  It  belonged  to  god 
Ea  and  Asari,  his  son,  later  identified  with  Merodach.  The 
Holy-Hill  and  the  oracle  passed  to  the  shrine  of  Merodach, 
where  he  delivered  his  oracles  on  the  New-Year  .  .  .  and  an¬ 
nounced  the  future  destinies  of  men.” 

(Hote,  page  374)  :  “Du-azagga,  the  holy  mound,  was  the 
home  of  Ea.  When  Eridu  and  Ea  were  supplanted  by  Baby¬ 
lonia  and  Merodach,  the  Du-azagga,  the  seat  of  the  oracles, 
was  transferred  to  them,  to  the  shrine  of  Bel-Merodach  who,  at 
the  beginning  of  the  year,  ‘seats  himself,  while  the  other  great 

’The  table  with  shew-bread  was  in  the  Holy  Place,  in  front  of  the  cur¬ 
tain,  parocheth,  dividing  the  Holy  Place  from  the  Holy  of  Holies. 


244 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


gods  stand  around  him  with  bowed  heads,  he  revealing  des¬ 
tiny.’  ” — (458) :  “The  general  plan  of  the  temples  was  alike 
everywhere,  a  court  open  to  the  sky,  surrounded  by  cloisters  and 
colonnades,  with  the  houses  of  the  priests,  the  library,  school, 
shops  for  the  votive  objects,  stalls  for  the  sacrificial  animals. 
In  the  center  of  the  court  stood  an  altar  of  sacrifice,  with  vases 
for  ablution,  a  sea  or  basin  of  water,  the  symbol  of  the  primeval 
‘deep’  (of  god  Ea  of  Eridu),  sometimes  on  the  back  of  twelve 
oxen,  but  sometimes  decorated  with  female  figures”  .  .  . 
(458)  :  “The  great  court  with  its  two  columns,  in  front,  led  into 
a  second,  where  the  Ziggurat  arose.  In  the  second  court  arose 
the  temple  proper,  consisting  of  an  outer  sanctuary  and  an  in¬ 
ner  shrine  ...  Ho  one  could  appear  before  the  god,  except 
through  the  mediation  of  the  priest.” 

(461)  :  “The  temples  were  served  by  an  army  of  priests. 
At  their  head  came  the  patisi,  or  high-priest,  who,  in  early  Baby¬ 
lon,  performed  the  functions  of  a  king,  as  the  adopted  son  and 
vice-gerent  of  the  god  .  .  .  With  Semitic  supremacy  the  vice¬ 
gerent  took  to  himself  the  attributes  of  the  deity  .  .  .  Under 
the  chief-priest  was  a  large  number  of  subordinate  priests,  di¬ 
vided  into  sacrificers,  pourers  of  libations,  anointers,  bakers  of 
the  sacred  cakes,  chanters,  wallers,  armbearers,  prophets  and 
augurs,  soothsayers,  necromancers  etc  .  .  .  The  prophets  were 
a  class  apart.  At  times  they  predicted  the  future  .  .  .  oftener 
they  announced  the  will  of  heaven  ...  as  the  interpreters  of 
the  will  of  Ea  .  .  .  Another  class  were  the  seers,  to  whom  the 
future  was  revealed  in  visions  and  trances”  .  .  .  (464)  :  “To 

Assur-bani-pal,  on  the  eve  of  the  Elamitic  war  a  seer  announced 
his  dream:  Istar  came  down,  on  the  right  and  left  hand  hang 
her  quivers,  in  her  hand  she  held  the  bow,  the  sharp  war-sword 
held  before  her ;  Istar  the  queen  of  the  gods,  appointeth  for  thee 
a  doom.  Eat,  drink  wine,  exalt  my  divinity  until  I  march  and 
accomplish  my  work  .  .  .  and  give  thee  thy  heart’s  desire”  .  .  . 
(465)  :  “The  prophet  there  was  a  member  of  the  priestly  body, 
with  previous  training  and  consecration  (not  a  layman)  .  .  . 
He  was  closely  linked  with  the  magician  and  necromancer. 
Magic  was  under  the  protection  of  the  State-religion  . .  .  There 


CONTRASTS  BETWEEN  BABYLONIA  AND  JUDAEA. 


245 


were  male  and  female  prophets  .  .  .  Women  were  specially  em¬ 
ployed  in  the  temples  of  Babylonia  .  .  .  Unmarried  women 
were  consecrated  to  Istar  and  the  Sun-god,  forming  a  corporate 
community.  All  these  were  annexed  to  the  temple.” 

(467)  :  “Libations  of  water,  wine,  milk  and  oil  were  offered 
to  the  deity.  Animal  sacrifices,  too,  were  offered  of  the  domes¬ 
ticated  beasts  and  of  the  cultivated  plants;  of  all  that  man  en¬ 
joyed,  he  gave  to  heaven.  Dog  and  swine  are  never  mentioned 
in  the  sacrificial  list  .  .  .  The  gazelle  was  driven  into  the  des¬ 
ert,  as  a  scapegoat,  carrying  away  the  sins  and  sicknesses  of 
those  who  let  it  loose,  like  the  Hebrew  Azazel  .  .  .  The  gods 
of  Semitic  Babylonia  were  essentially  human  and  what  men 
lived  upon  they,  too,  required1  .  .  .  Apparently,  the  first-born 
of  man  was  included  among  the  acceptable  sacrifices  to  the  gods, 
but  at  an  early  time  discontinued”2  .  .  . 

(469)  :  “A  tithe  of  all  the  land  produce  belonged  to  the 
gods,  paid  by  all  classes,  even  the  king,  for  the  support  of  tem¬ 
ple  and  priests.”  (470)  :  “There  were  daily  sacrifices,  ani¬ 
mal,  meal,  free-will  gift  and  trespass-offerings,  called  qur- 
bannu”3  .  .  .  (471)  :  “The  royal  temple  stood  close  to  the 

Temple  of  Merodach.  Even  the  bronze  serpent  which  Hezekiah 
destroyed  finds  its  parallel  in  bronze  serpents  erected  in  the 
gates  of  the  Babylonian  temples.” — (472)  :  “There  is  also  the 
ritual  of  the  sacrifice  of  a  lamb  at  the  gate  of  the  house,  the 
blood  of  which  is  to  be  smeared  on  the  lintels  and  door-posts 
.  .  .  There  are  many  other  resemblances  between  the  festivals 
of  Babylonia  and  of  Judaea.  Babylonia  was  an  agricultural 
community,  and  its  festivals  and  names  of  the  months  were  de¬ 
termined  by  that.  Spring  and  autumn  were  marked  by  sowing 
and  harvesting,  though  on  account  of  the  different  climes,  varv- 

'This  goes  to  corroborate  Herbert  Spencer’s  theory  that  (at  least  with 
some  peoples)  worship  grew  from  and  began  with  the  veneration  of  ances¬ 
tors,  tribal  chiefs,  who  became  gods  and  were  offered  sacrifices  as  food, 
after  death,  as  during  lifetime. 

2The  Pentateuch  frequently  denounces  such  sacrifices.  It  instituted  the 
redemption  of  the  first-born,  instead. 

:,The  Hebrew  qorban.  So  also  Assyrian  Kuppura  is  the  Hebrew  Kippur, 
Atonement. 


246 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


ing  also  in  time  .  .  .  That  was  a  period  of  rejoicing  and  rest 
from  labor,  with  thanksgivings  and  offerings  to  the  gods.” — 
(473)  :  “In  the  old  days  of  Gudea  of  Lagas  the  year  com¬ 
menced  with  the  middle  of  October.  In  later  Babylonia,  of 
Hammurabi,  the  feast  was  transferred  to  spring  .  .  .  The  an¬ 
cient  Canaanitish  year  began  in  the  autumn,  later  reckoned  as 
the  seventh  month.  At  Babylon  the  Hew- Year  was  sacred  to 
Merodach,  ‘when  he  sat  in  judgment  and  designated  the  fate 
and  destiny  of  all  mortals.  This  may  explain  why  the  Penta¬ 
teuch  designates  spring  (Hisan)  as  the  first  month.  It  never 
mentions  ‘Hew- Year,’  but  the  first  of  the  seventh  month,  as  a 
Memorial-Day,  and  the  Synagogue  solemnizes  it  as  Hew-Year 
and  Judgment-Day,  with  the  hymn,1  ‘T Ye  give  power  ’  drastical¬ 
ly  describing  God  determining  the  divers  human  lots  and  desti¬ 
nies  of  the  coming  year.” 

(392)  :  “The  conception2  of  a  law  governing  the  universe 
and  unable  to  be  broken,  lay  deep  in  the  Babylonian  mind. 
Even  the  gods  could  not  escape  it.  All  they  could  do  was  to  in¬ 
terpret  and  unveil  the  decrees  of  fate  and  act  up  to  them.  These 
were  contained  in  the  Tablets  of  Destiny  which  Bel  wore  on  his 
breast,  as  the  symbol  of  supremacy,  and  which  enabled  him 
yearly  to  predict  the  future,  not  to  change  it  .  .  .  So,  Bel- 
Merodach  of  Babylonia  had  to  sit  each  Hew-Year’s  Day  in  the 
mystic  chamber  of  fate  and  determine  the  destiny  of  mankind 
during  the  ensuing  year.” 

It  is  well  known  that  the  Synagogue  considers  Hew-Year, 
on  the  first  of  the  seventh  month,  as  a  Judgment-Day.3  A  sol¬ 
emn  meditation  on  it  runs  thus :  “Thou,  God,  rememberest  the 
world’s  destinies,  all  secrets  lie  uncovered  before  thee,  nothing 
is  hid  before  thy  throne.  Ho  creature  escapes  thy  Providence. 
Thou  rememberest  all  generations  .  .  Thou  decreest  for  all 
the  countries,  which  to  hunger  and  which  to  plenty;  this  for 
war  and  that  for  peace ;  and  all  the  creatures,  whether  for  life  or 

'U-nethane  toqef. 

2Of  Hindu  origin,  reproduced  vaguely  by  the  Qabbalists  and  distinctly  by 
Spinoza  :  All  is  law  and  necessity,  there  is  no  freedom  in  the  entire  Cosmos. 

•nirnn  jnat  ,pn  dv  ,fipin  n:mi  ,roE>n  cnt 


CONTRASTS  BETWEEN  BABYLONIA  AND  JUD^A. 


247 


for  death;  all  is  foredestined  today”  .  .  .  Another  meditation 
is  even  more  to  the  point.  It  is  recited  on  the  high  holy-days, 
setting  forth  the  majesty  of  the  Supreme  Judge  in  all  his  grim 
and  awful  grandeur :  It  reads :  “Let  us  tell  of  the  import  of  this 
holy-day,  redoubtable  and  awe-inspiring.  Thou,  God,  art  en¬ 
throned  in  mercy  and  dwellest  in  truth  on  thy  judgment  seat. 
Thou  art  judge,  advocate  and  witness.  Thou  openest  the  book 
of  records,  wherein  every  man’s  hand  is  inscribed  and  sealed, 
and  the  great  cornet  is  blown,  the  angels  hurriedly  stirring, 
with  trembling  and  shaking,  exclaiming:  The  Judment-Day  is 
at  hand,  to  decree  for  all  the  created  hosts;  and  all  the  world- 
inhabitants  pass  by  thee  as  the  lambs ;  as  the  pastor  passes  his 
Hocks  under  his  rod,  even  so  thou  rememberest  all  the  living  and 
decreest  to  them  their  irrevocable  destinies  .  .  .  On  Hew- Year 
it  is  written  down,  on  the  Atonement-fast  it  is  sealed,  how  many 
shall  pass  away,  how  many  be  born,  who  is  to  live,  who  to  die ; 
by  water,  bre,  sword,  wild-beast,  hunger,  thirst,  pestilence  or 
earthquake ;  who  is  to  be  strangled,  stoned ;  who  to  be  impover¬ 
ished,  and  who  be  enriched ;  who  he  lowered  and  who  be  exalted. 
Still,  repentance,  prayer  and  good  deeds  may  turn  and  change 
bitter  fate.” — Here  we  see  shadowy  and  helpless  Bel-Merodach 
yielding  his  place  to  Ihvh.  Moreover,  Ihvh  alone  is  Master  and 
Lord  of  even  fate,  whilst  Bel,  as  Jupiter,  tremble  before  fate.  Ho 
blind  destiny ;  repentance  and  good  deeds  carry  their  reward. 
In  the  Synagogue  Hew-Year  is  termed  Memorial-Day  when 
God  decrees  the  fate  of  all  beings.  Here  is  the  full  superiority 
of  Judaea  over  Babylon,  of  monotheism  over  polytheism;  what 
was  there  idle  myth  becomes  here  a  moral  lesson,  grand  and 
effective,  inducing  man  not  to  despair,  but  to  repentance  and 
improvement. 

(474)  :  “There  was  a  third  agricultural  festival,  at  the  Sum¬ 
mer  solstice,  in  the  month  of  June,  corresponding  to  the  month 
of  Tanunuz,  celebrating  a  god  who  died  an  untimely  death.” — 
These  three  great  agricultural  feasts  are  found  again  in  Canaan 
and  in  Israel,  but  here  with  a  rational  sense,  they  are  agricul¬ 
tural  and  national,  dedicated  to  God,  not  myth. 

Fluegel’s  “Humanity,  Benevolence  and  Charity  of  the  Pentateuch. 


248 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


(475)  :  “When  Gudea  consecrated  his  temple  at  Lagas,  he 
remitted  penalties  and  gave  presents.  For  seven  days  the  slaves 
were  the  equals  to  their  masters  .  .  .  Berosus  mentions  a  sim¬ 
ilar  custom  on  a  feast  in  July,  in  Babylon.  That  has  often  been 
compared  with  the  Roman  Saturnalia.” — Some  parallels  here  by 
the  Professor,  about  the  Jewish  Esther  feast,  Purim,  and  the 
Year  of  Jubilee  are  entirely  untenable;  but  the  ten  days  of  re¬ 
pentance  (between  Yew-Year  and  Atonement),  and  the  days  of 
the  feast  of  Lights  of  the  Jewish  calendar,  on  one  hand,  and  on 
the  other,  the  vacation  days  between  Christmas  and  Yew-Year, 
may  be  put  in  parallel  with  those  antique  days  of  temporarily 
enfranchising  the  slaves  and  domestic  hilarity,  practiced  in 
Babylonia,  in  Judaea,  in  the  Roman  world  and  in  the  Christian 
world. 

(476)  :  “The  Sabbath  day  was  essentially  of  Babylonian  ori¬ 
gin  ...  It  is  termed  there  Sabbatu  ...  In  a  list  of  the 
month  of  the  second  Elul,  we  read  that  the  7th,  14th,  19th,  21st 
and  28th  days  of  the  month  were  all  alike  days  of  quiet  and 
rest,  dedicated  to  Merodach  and  Zarpanit.  It  is  a  lucky  day 
and  a  quiet  day”  .  .  .  But  what  proves  that  every  month  had 
its  seven  days’  Sabbaths  ?  Why  is  the  19th  of  the  second  Elul, 
too,  such  a  rest-day  ?  Were  there  thus,  in  all,  five  Sabbaths  in 
that  month?  Elsewhere  we  have  shown  that  Exodus,  16.26, 
plainly  states  that  the  Sabbath-rest  was  known  to  the  Hebrews 
previous  to  the  Exodus  and  the  Sinaic  Law.1  Yext,  what  proves 
that  Sabbath  in  Babylonia  was  a  holiday,  in  our  sensei  of  the 
term  ?  A  day  of  universal  rest,  consecration,  elevation  and  spir¬ 
itualization  it  became  only  with  Israel,  only  with  the  Mosaic 
Code,  a  day  characterizing  the  Hebrew  people  for  millennia,  su¬ 
perior  to  the  Yew-moon  and  all  the  holidays,  and  of  the  most 
far-reaching  consequences. — (478)  :  “As  we  come  to  know  more 
of  the  ritual  of  Babylonia,  the  resemblance  it  bears  to  that  of 
the  Hebrews  becomes  more  striking  and  extensive.  They  both 
start  from  the  same  principles  and  agree  in  many  of  their  de¬ 
tails”  .  .  .  — In  some  small  details  they  do  agree,  but  they 


'See  “Spirit  of  the  Biblical  Legislation,”  pages  144-147. 


CONTRASTS  BETWEEN  BABYLONIA  AND  JUDjEA. 


249 


start  not  from  the  same  principles,  far  from  that.  The  resem¬ 
blances  are  but  superficial,  in  externals  and  in  forms,  not  in 
spirit  and  not  in  essentials.  Each  starts  from  most  different 
principles,  and  hence  must  arrive  at  divergent  conclusions. 
There  may  have  been  some  outward  resemblances  in  the  temple 
structure,  forms  of  worship,  sacerdoce,  time  of  feasts  and  jolli¬ 
fication  etc.,  but  not  in  soul  and  spirit.  It  is  a  difference  as 
between  civilized  man  and  savage.  Babylonia  went  on  and 
contined  polytheistic  and  mythic;  Judsea  sharply  broke  off  and 
became  monotheistic,  realistic ;  here  is  the  difference.  I  feel 
happy  in  coinciding  fully  with  the  conclusions  of  the  Professor 
in  the  chapter  just  reviewed,  acknowledging  that  “the  principles 
of  Judaea  and  Babylonia  were  immeasurbaly  different,  hence 
their  results  must  have  been  so  also.”  So  Professor  Sayce,  ver¬ 
batim,  concludes:  (478):  “Between  them,  indeed,  lies  that 
deep  gulf  of  difference  which  separates  the  religions  of  Israel 
and  Babylonia,  as  a  whole;  the  one  is  monotheistic,  the  other 
polytheistic.” — Yes,  the  one  is  monotheism,  with  goodness,  jus¬ 
tice,  purity,  wisdom,  freedom,  peace,  mercy  and  work ;  the  other 
is  polytheism,  with  force,  over-reaching,  sensuality,  myth,  slav¬ 
ery,  war  and  conquest — The  difference  is:  there  barbarism  and 
here  civilization;  exactly  the  same  result  as  that  arrived  at, 
when  we  compared  the  Code  of  Hammurabi  to  that  of  the  Penta¬ 
teuch. 

BABEL-BIBLE  CONTROVERSY  IN  GERMANY.1 

“Professor  Delitzsch  was  bold  enough  to  assert  that  by  the 
Babylonian  writings  he  could  prove  that  the  God-idea  of  the 
Old  Testament  originated  with  the  Babylonians,  that  also  the 
Sabbath  is  of  Babylonian  origin.  He  thought  he  could  depreci¬ 
ate  the  entire  Old  Testament  and  in  its  place  plant  the  standard 
of  old  Babylon.  .  .  .  Delitzsch  finally  made  the  following  state¬ 
ment:  ‘Mankind  needs  a  form  in  order  to  teach  the  God-idea, 
especially  to  our  children.  This  form  has  up  to  the  present  time 
been  the  Old  Testament  as  handed  down  to  us.  This  form  will 
change  considerably  as  a  result  of  researches,  inscriptions  and 

’Clipped  from  a  German  paper  of  1903,  April,  and  translated  into  English. 


250 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OP  PENTATEUCH. 


excavations.  That  is  of  no  consequence,  even  if  much  of  the 
nimbus  about  the  chosen  people  be  lost.  The  kernel,  the  con¬ 
tent,  remains  the  same — God  and  His  works !’  .  .  . 

“On  the  whole,  the  Jews  can  depend  upon  the  Christian  the¬ 
ologians,  who  all,  each  in  his  own  way,  defend  the  cause  of  the 
Old  Testament.  Countless  lectures,  protests,  pamphlets,  pour  in 
every  day.  And  now  that  the  Emperor  publicly  disavows  his 
former  favorable  opinion  of  the  lectures,  the  protest  against 
‘Babel  and  Bible’  will  continue,  so  that  what  Harnack  said  to 
the  representative  of  the  Hew  York  Staats-Zeitung  will  prove 
to  be  true:  ‘We  may  hope  that  the  precious  value  of  the  Old 
Testament,  the  lofty  spirit  which  emanates  from  prophet  and 
psalmist,  the  ethical  progress  which  exists  in  monotheism,  will 
be  universally  appreciated  by  reason  of  this  controversy.’  .  .  . 

“A  learned  Assyriologist,  the  Protestant  minister,  Dr.  Jo¬ 
hannes  Jeremias,  attacks  the  subject  from  a  purely  scientific 
point  of  view,  and  compares  Moses  and  Hammurabi.  The  pam¬ 
phlet  turns  against  Delitzsch’s  assertion  of  the  lesser  value  of 
the  Mosaic  Law  compared  with  the  collection  of  Hammurabi’s 
laws,  recently  discovered.  In  Dr.  Jeremias  the  learned  theo¬ 
logian  and  the  learned  Assyriologist  are  of  equal  rank,  and  he 
finally  comes  to  this  conclusion:  ‘With  satisfaction  and  joy  I 
admit  that  through  the  discovery  of  the  Codex  Hammurabi  my 
conviction  of  the  divine  origin  of  the  Thorah  has  been  strength¬ 
ened.’  ‘Leopold  von  Ranke,’  he  says  at  the  end,  ‘again  proves 
himself  in  the  right.  Moses  is  the  most  eminent  personality  in 
the  history  of  antiquity.’ 

“Prof.  Dr.  Giesebrecht,  the  Protestant  representative  of  the 
study  of  the  Old  Testament  at  the  Berlin  University,  also  took 
hold  of  the  matter,  and  in  a  lengthy  discourse  presented  a  sharp 
criticism  of  Delitzsch’s  assertions.  Delitzsch  suffers,  he  says, 
from  a  lack  of  philosophical  and  historical  training — indeed, 
even  the  elementary  knowledge  of  religious  history.  Giese- 
breclit’s  remarks,  too,  point  to  the  glorification  of  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  as  opposed  to  Babylonian  culture.  ‘We  see  appearing  in 
Israel  an  unbroken  chain  of  holiest  prophets,  who,  pure  and  in¬ 
corruptible,  pronounced  judgment  upon  their  people,  each  sur- 


BABEL-BIBLE  CONTROVERSY  IN  GERMANY. 


251 


passing  the  other,  penetrating  deeper  and  deeper  into  the  treas¬ 
ures  of  divine  wisdom  .  .  .  But  where  can  we  find  the  fullness 
of  divine  thought  ?  Surely  not  in  Babylon,  where  for  thousands 
of  years  the  most  outrageous  superstition  prevailed,  where,  as 
even  Delitzsch  must  admit,  the  basest  idolatry  always  existed, 
while  in  Israel  idolatry  was  abolished,  the  one  God  worshipped 
and  all  superstition  officially  prohibited.  .  .  .  Why  has  Baby¬ 
lonia  produced  not  a  single  religious  leader,  not  even  a  prophetic 
personality,  worth  mentioning?’  .  .  . 

“At  the  beginning  of  the  new  edition  (26,000-30,000)  of 
‘Babel  and  Bible’  appears  a  preface  entitled  ‘An  Explanation,’ 
which  in  reality  is  a  piece  of  diplomacy.  He  is  aware  of  the 
fact  that  the  Emperor  is  satisfied  to  admit  a  ‘modification  of 
the  nimbus,’  so  far  as  Israel  is  concerned,  so  long  as  his  sensi¬ 
bility  as  a  Christian  remains  intact;  accordingly,  Delitzsch 
quotes  one  of  the  prophets,  who  prays  that  the  wrath  of  God  be 
visited  upon  the  foes  of  Israel,  and  in  the  eloquence  of  his 
prayer  preaches  the  destruction  of  every  other  nation.  The  pas¬ 
sage  ends :  ‘And  I  will  tread  down  the  people  in  mine  anger, 
and  make  them  drunk  in  my  fury,  and  I  will  bring  down  their 
strength  to  the  earth.’  ‘Truly,’  continues  Delitzsch,  ‘a  song 
of  battle  and  triumph,  Bedawin-like  in  wording,  style  and 
thought.  Ho!  These  verses  (Isaiah,  chapter  63.1-6),  and 
hundreds  of  other  prophetic  sayings,  full  of  inexpressible  hatred 
against  the  nations — Edom,  Moab,  Assur,  Babylonia,  Tyre  and 
Egypt — for  the  most  part  masterpieces  of  Hebrew  rhetoric,  are 
supposed  to  represent  the  ethical  prophecy  of  Israel  in  the  high¬ 
est  form!  These  expressions  of  political  jealousy,  peculiar  to 
the  period,  and  from  a  human  point  of  view  of  a  passionate 
hatred  easily  understood,  belonging  to  generations  of  thousands 
of  years  ago,  should  perhaps  serve  as  a  book  of  religion — of 
morals  and  edification  for  Western  and  Christian  civilization  of 
the  twentieth  century !  Instead  of  thankfully  appreciating  the 
rule  of  God  in  our  own  nation  from  its  Teutonic  origin  to  the 
present  day,  we  continue,  in  ignorance,  indifference  or  blind¬ 
ness,  to  acknowledge  those  revelations  of  the  ancient  Israel  ora¬ 
cles,  which  cannot  hold  ther  own  in  the  light  of  science,  religion 


252 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


or  ethics.  The  deeper  I  delve  into  the  spirit  of  the  prophetical 
writings  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  more  fearful  I  am  of  Jeho¬ 
vah,  who  destroys  the  nations  by  His  insatiable  sword  of  wrath, 
who  has  but  one  favorite  child,  and  who  delivers  all  other  na¬ 
tions  into  darkness,  shame  and  destruction ;  who  spoke  to  Abra¬ 
ham:  ‘I  will  bless  them  that  bless  thee,  and  curse  them  that 
curse  thee.’  I  take  my  refuge  with  him  who,  living  and  dy¬ 
ing,  taught  ‘Bless  them  that  curse  you,  and  flee  full  of  faith  and 
joy  and  earnest  endeavor  towards  moral  perfection  to  that  God 
to  whom  Jesus  taught  us  to  pray;  that  God  who  is  a  loving  and 
just  Father  to  all  persons  in  the  world.’ 

“Does  not  Delitzsch  surpass  himself  ?  Can  there  exist  greater 
sophistry  than  to  present  one  quotation  without  its  context  as  a 
proof  against  the  Old  Testament  and  its  spirit,  and  then,  with 
unction,  to  compare  with  it  a  verse  of  the  Hew  Testament  ?  Ho ; 
Herr  Delitzsch,  neither  you  nor  your  Emperor  bless  those  who 
curse  you.  Whoever  curses  the  Emperor  is  not  blessed  by  him, 
but  is  cast  into  prison  for  lese  majest.  And  when  in  case  of 
war,  as  in  China,  he  ‘gives  no  pardon,’  and  war  is  war  now,  as 
in  Isaiah’s  day.  The  only  difference  is  that  nowadays  there  is 
none  to  picture  war  so  powerfully  and  graphically  with  such 
lofty  poetry  as  did  that  great  poet.  Hor  has  any  poet  since  his 
time  depicted  peace  so  divinely,  that  peace  when  mankind  will 
‘beat  their  swords  into  plowshares  and  their  spears  into  prun- 
ing-hooks.  Hation  shall  not  lift  up  sword  against  nation,  nei¬ 
ther  shall  they  learn  war  any  more.’  Who  would  believe  him 
who  ridicules  the  revelation  when  he,  with  sudden  hypocrisy,  ac¬ 
knowledges  that  God  to  whom  Jesus  taught  him  to  pray?  Sure¬ 
ly,  he  is  the  same  God  who  was  revealed  in  the  Old  Testament, 
so  strongly  denied  by  him.  Ho  other! 

“How  his  opponents  will  find  it  easier.  One  need  be  no  theo¬ 
logian  to  understand — every  layman  can  see  the  gross  contradic¬ 
tion.  It  is  a  pity  that  Eduard  Koenig  and  Harnack  have  al¬ 
ready  written  their  views;  it  would  have  been  interesting  to 
know  what  these  eminent,  thoughtful  theologians  would  have 
said  about  this  preface. 


BABEL-BIBLE  CONTROVERSY  IN  GERMANY. 


253 


“That  broadminded  preacher,  Friedrich  Steudel,  of  Bremen, 
in  the  journal,  Das  Freie  Wort,  opposed  Hamack  and  the  Em¬ 
peror  even  more  than  Delitzsch  himself.  Steudel  strikes  the 
nail  on  the  head  when  he  says  of  both,  Harnack  and  the  Em¬ 
peror  :  “Since  they  do  not  wholly  appreciate  the  weight  of  their 
words,  both  are  blameworthy.  The  Emperor  has  ‘unshaken 
faith  in  the  word  of  Christ ;’  Harnack  advises  ‘to  obey  His  com¬ 
mand.’  Both  are  sincere  in  believing  the  highest  and  best.  But 
perhaps  a  time  will  come  when  one  is  sincere  enough  to  oneself 
to  admit  the  impossibility  of  an  actual  realization  of  Jesus’ 
teachings.  .  .  .  For  these  words  have  been  handed  down  from 
Him:  ‘Resist  not  evil,  but  whosoever  shall  smite  thee  on  thy 
right  cheek,  turn  to  him  the  other  also ;’  ‘Bless  them  that  curse 
you’  (the  very  sentence  which  Delitzsch  selected  to  show  Jesus’ 
superiority  over  the  old  prophets);  ‘Blessed  are  the  meek;’ 
‘Blessed  are  the  merciful.’ 

“Compare  with  this  the  imperial  words,  ‘I  will  destroy  my 
enemies;’  ‘Ho  pardon  to  be  given,’  ‘Suprema  lex  regis  voluntas,’ 
one  can  easily  recognize  the  deep  chasm  between  the  world  of 
reality  and  the  teachings  of  Jesus.  .  .  . 

“It  is  impossible  within  the  limits  of  this  article  to  quote 
the  numerous  writings  called  forth  by  the  discourse  of  Delitzsch 
upon  ‘Babel  and  Bible.’  Each  day  brings  new  contributions 
worthy  of  notice. 

“In  conclusion,  one  more  opinion,  that  of  Eduard  Koenig, 
who  summarizes  his  own  views  and  those  of  a  number  of  promi¬ 
nent  men  of  learning:  ‘Yes,  Babylonia  undoubtedly  represents 
the  starting-point  of  numberless  moving  forces  in  culture,  reach¬ 
ing  far  and  near.  But  religion,  the  conclusive  factor  of  all 
culture,  possesses  its  classical  source  in  the  Bible.  Babylonia 
may  be  termed,  if  you  will,  the  ‘brain  of  Asia,’  but  what 
forms  the  real  life  of  the  Bible  had  its  source  in  overtowering 
experience,  and  the  eternal  truth  will  prevail,  that  in  Babylonia 
mankind  endeavored  to  reach  heaven,  but  in  the  Bible  heaven 
reaches  down  into  the  lives  of  poor  humanity.’  ” 

Fluegel’s  “  Humanity,  Benevolence  and  Charity  of  the  Pentateuch.” 


254 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


Oppert  on  Friedrich  Delitzsch. 

According  to  Professor  Oppert  (“Babel  and  Bible”),  “the 
main  idea  of  Professor  Delitzsch  is  that  everything  is  Baby¬ 
lonian  .  .  .  The  Mosaic  Law  is  indebted  for  all  its  contents  to 
which  the  term  moral  and  great  may  be  applied,  to  Assyria  and 
Babylonia.  Only  the  human  and  objectionable  parts  belong  to 
Israel.  Even  the  idea  of  the  existence  of  One  Only  God  is  as¬ 
signed  to  Babylonia  .  .  .  The  legends  of  Creation,  the  Deluge, 
the  Sabbath,  the  feasts,  all  come  from  Chaldea  .  .  .  And  all 
these  assertions,  which  are  false  and  rest  on  no  historic  founda¬ 
tion,  are  sent  forth  to  the  world,  while  nearly  everything  that 
proves  the  contrary  is  ignored  ...  To  Ihvh  is  given  the  char¬ 
acter  of  a  ‘wild  Bedawin,’  forgetting  that  he  is  described  as :  ‘the 
God  of  mercy  and  grace,  long  suffering,  of  great  benignity  and 
truth.’ 

“In  a  remote  age  a  people  of  Uranian  origin  descended  to 
the  plains  of  Mesopotamia,  from  the  high  plateau  of  Central 
Asia.  This  Sumerian  people,  Sanir,  is  preserved  in  the  Shinar 
of  the  Bible:  “Two  Rivers”  ( Shenm-Naharim ).  In  the  sixth 
millenium  before  the  Christian  era,  a  Semitic  emigration  pro¬ 
ceeded  from  Arabia,  which  modified  the  Sumerian  civilization, 
merging  the  Uranian  deities  into  the  Semitic  ones.  Thus  was 
evolved  the  Sumerian  culture  .  .  .  From  India  to  Egypt,  all 
over  Western  Asia,  we  note  the  same  process  of  evolution.  De¬ 
litzsch  knew  only  Chaldea.  At  the  commencement  of  the  sec¬ 
ond  millenium  before  the  Christian  era,  Abraham  went  forth 
from  Ur  in  Chaldea,  a  striking  personality,  the  first  man  on 
record  who  professed  the  idea  of  one  god  .  .  .  He  settled  in 
Canaan  ...  It  was  from  Egypt,  not  Chaldea,  that  Moses  came 
.  .  .  The  Babylonians  regarded  the  7th,  14th,  21st  and  28th  of 
the  moon  as  unlucky  .  .  .  But  as  the  month  has  291/2  days, 
these  rest  days  fell  on  all  days  of  the  week.  The  Mosaic  Sab¬ 
bath  made  it  independent  of  astronomical  influence;  it  calcu¬ 
lated  each  week  of  seven  days,  not  by  the  moon,  but  by  arith¬ 
metical  numeration”  .  .  . 

“Three  names  found  in  Babylonian  business-deeds  are  men¬ 
tioned  by  Delitzsch  as  meaning  ‘Ihvh  is  God,’  and  this  shows 


OPrERT  ON  FRIEDRICH  DELITZSCH. 


255 


conclusively  his  faulty  deduction  .  .  .  All  three1  names  belong 
to  persons,  invoking,  in  the  very  same  documents,  several  heath¬ 
en  deities — queer  monotheists !  Each  of  the  three  names  is  the 
third  person  of  an  Elamite  verb,  and  by  no  means  a  divine 
name  ...  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  many  different  Babylonian 
gods  and  Merodachs  prove  that  the  most  extravagant  polytheism 
prevailed  in  Chaldea,  down  to  the  times  of  the  Romans  .  .  . 
As  long  as  Delitzsch  confined  his  criticism  to  the  Old  Testament 
his  audience  was  pleased ;  but  when  he  commenced  discussing 
the  Gospel  he  was  invited  to  hold  his  tongue !  .  .  .  Hammu¬ 
rabi  was  not  Amraphel,  King  of  Shinar.2  The  first  reigned 
earlier  .  .  .  The  historical  truth  cannot  be  minimized  that 
among  all  nations  of  antiquity  Israel  alone  kept  its  faith  to  one 
God  and  alone  is  alive  to  it.” 

‘Yapi-el,  Yauppi-el,  Y’a-u-um-el;  Delitzsch  reads  Yahael,  Yauhael,  “h” 
instead  of  “p,”  which  Oppert  contests. 

2The  same  opines  I.  Halevy,  of  the  Paris  Review  Semitique. 


256 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

Egyptology,  Bible  and  Rabbinism. 

More  than  in  Babylonia  we  find  in  Egypt  many  spiritual  ele¬ 
ments  which  have  been  utilized,  utilized,  not  copied,  utilized 
after  much  pruning,  elaborating  and  chastening,  widening  and 
deepening,  systematizing  and  making  them  square  with  the  full 
and  mature  conception  of  Hebrew  monotheism  and  spritualit.y. 
We  have  seen  Judaea  standing  on  the  postament  of  Babylonia, 
the  heir  of  its  culture,  about  as  much  as  man  may  be  the  far- 
off  outcome  of  a  lower  creation.  But  spiritually,  it  seems  to  me, 
it  stands  much  nearer  to  Egypt.  Let  us  pick  up  the  elements 
to  this  view  in  the  same  excellent  work  of  Prof.  A.  H.  Sayce. 
We  have  above  surveyed  one  part  of  it;  here  let  us  examine  its 
other  part:  (Ibid.,  33).  “In  Hermopolis  the  conception  of 
Creation  by  the  (divine)  voice  was  first  formed  and  worked 
out;  while  at  Heliopolis  the  deities  were  first  formed  into 
groups  of  nine,  which  led  to  their  identification  and  thus  pre¬ 
pared  the  way  for  monotheism.”1  (35-36)  :  “The  Pharaoh, 
Khu-n-Aten  appears  as  a  royal  reformer,  determined  to  realize 
the  idea  of  the  Supreme  Deity,  the  sole  and  only  God,  the  abso¬ 
lute  ruler  of  the  universe,  eternal  and  invisible  .  .  .  But  the 
impulse  to  that  reform  came  from  Asia.  His  mother  was  a  for¬ 
eigner,  and  that  reform  proved  a  failure  .  .  .  Though  enforced 
by  the  power  of  the  Pharaoh,  it  hardly  survived  his  death. 
Ammon  of  Thebes  came  out  victorious  .  .  .  The  Egyptian 
continued  as  he  was  .  .  .  Only  a  few  educated  ones  became 
less  materialistic  .  .  .  The  educated  came  to  see  in  the  multi¬ 
tudinous  gods  of  the  public  worshp  merely  varying  manifesta¬ 
tions  of  one  divine  substance  ...  At  the  same  time,  the  old 
belief  was  never  disavowed,  that  images  were  actually  animated 
by  the  gods  or  their  human  prototypes.”  (94)  :  “Henceforward 
there  was  to  be  but  one  god  in  Egypt,  omnipresent  and  omni- 

■Maspero,  “Etudes  de  Mythologie,”  II.,  372;  so  the  Qabbala’s  10  Sephi- 
roth  may  be  the  Hebraic  ladder  to  the  same  climax. 


EGYPTOLOGY  AND  BIBLE. 


257 


scient,  brooking  no  rival  at  his  side  .  .  .  The  Pharaoh,  Am- 
mon-Hotnp  IV.  changed  his  name  into  Khu-n-Aten,1  and  thus 
publicly  acknowledged  his  new  religion  of  Aten.” — (97)  :  “The 
solar  disc  was  the  emblem  of  Aten,  creator  of  all  existence,  by 
the  word  of  his  mouth.” — (98)  :  “Aten  was  in  the  things  cre¬ 
ated.  There  was  nothing  outside  him  .  .  .  He  was  the  god  of 
the  whole  universe  .  .  .  and  all  live  through  him  (and  he  in 
them,  i.  e.,  God  immanent  in  the  universe,  pantheism).” — (99) 
“The  date  of  Khu-n-Aten  is  about  1400  B.  C.  Is  there  any  con¬ 
nection  between  that  and  Mosaism  ?  ...  In  Mosaism  we  look 
in  vain  for  any  trace  of  pantheism ;  Ihvh  stands  outside  of  his 
creation  ”  (holding  it  in  his  lap). 

Egyptian  Immortality  Conception. 

The  Egyptians  believed  that  besides  the  body,  man  harbors 
something  incorporeal  which  remains  after  the  body’s  death. 
That  remaining  part  they  designated  by  different  names,  as  the 
Ka,  Khu  and  Ba,  viz : 

(Page  48)  :  “Ka  was  the  double,  the  reflection,  the  shadow, 
the  name,  the  soul,  the  idea,  the  fac-simile,  the  essence  and  per¬ 
sonality  of  a  thing  or  person.  It  was  also  the  arch-type,  of 
which  all  other  like  things  were  but  the  copies,  as  were  Plato’s 
Ideas.  This  was  the  philosophical  development  of  the  popular 
Ka,  originally  the  shadow  and  double  of  the  thing. 

(Page  62)  :  “The  divinest  part  of  the  soul  was  termed  Khu, 
intelligence,  nous;  it  held  in  its  envelope  the  Ba,  the  soul,  the 
psyche.  These  three  terms  for  the  invisible  human  soul  or 
spirit  correspond  somewhat  to  our  modern  terms  of  vitality,  or 
animal  life,  soul,  and  finally  intelligence,  spirit  in  the  highest 

'“The  glory  of  the  Sun-disc,”  according  to  Professor  Sayce.  But  may  it 
not  mean  the  Ka  or  the  Kuh,  the  soul  of  Aten,  identical  with  the  Vedanta 
term,  Atman,  the  Supreme  Brahman,  the  Living  Breath,  the  Ruah-Elohim 
of  Genesis,  1.2?  In  all  these  metaphysical  speculations  I  ever  suspect  an 
original  identity  of  idea,  multiplied  and  varied  later  by  inaccurate  trans¬ 
lations  and  misunderstandings,  different  words  for  the  same  thing.  Such 
was  the  Hindu  Brahman,  the  Universal  Soul,  Self-Existent,  Spiritual 
Essence,  and  such  the  Egyptian  Khefer  Zes,  the  Self-Grown.  Let  scholars 
look  to  it. 


258 


HUMANITY.  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


sense.”  They  may  be  approximately  the  equivalents  of  the  He¬ 
braic  Nepesh,  Neshama,  Ruah,1  all  three  synonyms  denoting- 
alike  breath,  wind  and  life,  hai,  liaim,  Zoo,  Zi,  Ka. 

The  “Hermetic  books”  teach  (page  62)  that:  “As  long  as  the 
soul  is  imprisoned  in  the  body,  the  intelligence  is  deprived  of  its 
robe  of  fire,  its  purity  is  sullied.  The  death  of  the  body  releases 
it  from  its  prison-house ;  it  once  more  soars  up  to  heaven  and 
becomes  a  spirit,  daimon ;  while  the  soul  is  carried  to  the  hall  of 
judgment,  there  to  be  awarded  with  happiness  or  punishment, 
in  accordance  with  its  deserts.2  The  Khu,  in  other  words,  is  a 
spark  of  that  divine  intelligence  which  pervades  the  world  and 
to  which  it  must  return.  The  Ba  is  the  individual  soul,  respon¬ 
sible  after  death  for  the  deeds  committed  in  the  body.” 

Such  ideas  pervade  also  the  Jewish  mystics  and  moralists, 
even  the  Qahbalists.  The  soul  is  differentiated  into  Nefesli,  Ne¬ 
shama,  Ruah,  the  heart  leh  and  hibut  haqaber  answer  to  the 
above  Hermetic  description.  There,  too,  the  heart  is  mentioned 
as  the  seat  of  the  passions.  In  the  Egyptian  ritual  it  is  the 
stomach,  thrown  into  the  sea,  as  the  origin  of  sin. 

(63:)  “The  Ka  was  distinguished  from  the  Ba.  (The  Ba 
was  thus  the  more  refined  being  than  the  Ka,  and  less  than  the 
Khu,  its  husk  and  envelope.3)  After  purification  it  ascended 
to  heaven  and  remained  with  the  gods.  Whilst  the  Ka,  as  the 
shadow  of  the  body,  clung  to  the  grave  and  participated  in  the 
food  offered  to  the  dead  within.  Hence  came  the  habitual  offer¬ 
ing  of  food  on  the  grave,  yet  lingering  in  Egypt.” — Food  is  not 
offered  on  Jewish  graves,  but  the  Agada  mentions  some  arti¬ 
cles  of  clothing,  toilet  etc.,  sometimes  deposited  thereon.  Origi- 

,D',n  'n  K'BJ  nn  (ruah,  neshama,  nephesh).  The  Hebraic  mor¬ 

alists  use  these  three  terms  pretty  much  indiscriminately,  all  denoting 
soul,  spirit,  breath;  the  Jewish  philosophers  use  ruah  as  the  divinest  part, 
the  immortal  soul  or  spirit  of  man  ;  Scripture  commonly  means  by  ruah  our 
modern  spirit  and  intelligence.  Still  the  three  terms  are  synonymous,  not 
ever  clearly  defined  and  discriminated,  and  hence  also  their  haziness 
in  Egyptian  philosophy  and  religion. 

2Hermes  Trismegist.,  Pocmandres,  Ed.  Parthey,  Chs.  I.  and  X. 

3Professor  Maspero,  “Etudes  de  Mythology,”  I.,  page  166,  thus  differs 
with  Professor  Sayce :  the  same  discrepency  we  find  among  the  Jewish 
moralists  on  these  three  terms. 


Egypt’s  immortality  concept. 


259 


nally  the  belief  was  entertained  that  the  mummy,  too,  will  res¬ 
urrect  ;  but  when  Egypt,  after  Alexander,  became  identified  with 
Greek  culture,  that  dropped  out  of  sight,  and  the  spiritual  im¬ 
mortality  alone  was  accentuated:  Man  became  an  Osiris,  i.  e., 
was  to  be  spiritually  absorbed  in  the  Deity  (as  the  Brahman 
Nirvana  doctrine). 

(68)  :  “Body,  spirit  and  soul  are  common  to  man  and 
beast,  and  divine  intelligence  alone  distinguishes  him.  The  in¬ 
telligence  is  ever  seeking  to  purify  the  soul  and  raise  it  to  it¬ 
self,  but  the  flesh  acts  in  the  contrary  sense,  and  the  soul  is  to 
answer  for  the  choice  it  makes.  If  it  had  wisely  listened  to 
the  intelligence,  it  completes  its  education,  rises  with  it  to  God, 
sees  him  face  to  face  and  is  lost  in  his  ineffable  glory.” — Simi¬ 
lar  is  the  view  of  our  Rabbis. 

Others  speak  of  two  angels,  or  instincts,  in  man’s  heart,  that 
of  good  and  that  of  evil,  as  also  of  an  interrogatory  hereafter, 
and  final  beatitude1  after  a  trial  time,  “hibut  ha-qaber.” 

Morality  in  Religion. 

(173)  :  “The  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body  in¬ 
volved  that  of  the  judgment  of  the  deeds  of  the  body.  Only 
those  were  admitted  into  the  region  of  Osiris  (Paradise),  who, 
as  he,  Osiris,  had  done  good  to  man.  Man  therefore  had  to  be 
morally,  as  ceremonially,  pure  ...  in  conformity  with  one  of 
the  most  moral  codes  of  antiquity  .  .  .  This  was  the  most  re¬ 
markable  fact  in  the  Osirian  Code  .  .  .  Morality  was  made  an 
integral  part  of  religion.” — (174)  :  “The  Book  of  the  Dead 
(one  of  the  Egyptian  Sacred  Books)  contains  the  confession  of 
faith  for  the  pious  one.  He  confesses  before  Osiris,  the  Su¬ 
preme  God  and  Judge:  I  have  not  acted  with  deceit  or  done 
evil  to  men.  I  have  not  oppressed  the  poor.  I  have  not  judged 
unjustly.  I  have  not  known  aught  of  wicked  things.  I  have 
not  committed  sin.  I  have  not  exacted  more  work  from  the 
laborer  than  was  just.  I  have  not  been  feeble  of  purpose.  I 
have  not  defaulted.  I  have  not  been  niggardly.  I  have  not 
done  what  the  gods  abhor.  I  have  not  caused  the  slave  to  be 

'Talmud  and  Maimonides :  The  just  are  enthroned,  crown  on  head, 
enjoying  of  the  beatitude  of  the  Shekinah. 


260 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


ill-treated  by  bis  master.  I  have  made  none  to  hunger.  I  have 
made  none  to  weep.  I  have  not  committed  or  caused  murder. 
I  have  not  dealt  treacherously  with  anyone.  I  have  not  dimin¬ 
ished  the  offerings  to  the  temples.  I  have  not  spoiled  the  shew- 
bread  of  the  gods.  I  have  not  robbed  the  dead  of  their  loaves 
and  cere-clothes.  I  have  not  been  unchaste.  I  have  not  defiled 
myself  in  the  sanctuary.  I  have  not  stinted  in  offerings.  I  have 
not  defrauded  on  the  scales.  I  have  not  taken  the  milk  of  the 
child.  I  have  not  hunted  the  cattle  in  their  meadows.  I  have 
not  kept  away  the  water  (from  my  neighbor)  in  the  time  of  in¬ 
undation.  I  have  not  defrauded  the  gods  of  their  victims.  I 
have  not  driven  away  the  oxen  of  the  temple.  I  am  pure !  I 
am  pure !  I  am  pure !  .  .  .  Grant,  O  gods,  that  the  deceased 
may  come  unto  you,  he  who  has  not  sinned,  not  lied,  not  done 
evil,  not  committed  any  crime,  nor  borne  false  witness,  who 
liveth  and  feedeth  in  truth.  lie  spread  but  joy  around  him. 
He  has  given  bread  to  the  hungry,  water  to  the  thirsty,  clothing 
to  the  naked,  a  boat  to  the  shipwrecked,  sacrifices  to  the  gods 
and  sepulchral  meals  to  the  dead.  Deliver  him,  for  his  mouth 
and  his  hands  are  pure.”1 

There  is  a  story  about  an  aged  Spartan  who,  entering  a 
crowded  assembly  of  Athenians,  found  no  place  to  sit  down.  At 
last  a  young  stranger  arose  from  his  seat  and  invited  him  to 
occupy  it.  The  Athenians  applauded.  The  Spartan  remarked: 
“The  Athenians  know  what  is  fair,  but  do  not  do  it.”  We  find 
here  that  the  Egyptians  fairly  well  knew  what  is  right.  Hut 
did  they  do  what  is  right?  I  am  afraid  they  did  not!  Just  the 
easy-going  way  of  the  confession  shows  that  the  Egyptian 
priests,  prescribing  that  ritual  and  confession,  took  it  not  very 
seriously  with  their  spiritual  patients  and  adherents.  They 
acted  not  as  teachers  and  moralists,  anxious  for  salvation,  but 
rather  on  the  principle  of  courtiers  of  spoiled  princes ;  not  as 
honest  tutors  to  obedient  pupils,  hut  as  bribed  judges  of  insolent 
culprits.  They  just  hinted  to  their  penitents  what  is  good 
and  moral,  but  did  not  make  them  do  it.  Compare  with  that 
any  of  the  harangues  of  a  Hebrew  prophet.  There  is  the  same 

'Professor  Maspero,  “Dawn  of  Civilization,”  page  190. 


MORALITY  IN  RELIGION. 


261 


difference  as  between  the  flames  of  a  fiery  volcano  and  the  glim¬ 
mer  of  a  humble  candle:  (Isaiah,  1.)  :  “Listen,  O  ye  heavens, 
and  hearken,  O  earth,  children  I  have  grown  and  reared,  hut 
they  have  rebelled  against  me.  The  ox  knows  his  owner,  the 
ass  his  master’s  crib.  Israel  knows  me  not,  my  people  is  un¬ 
reasonable.  Woe  to  thee,  sinful  people,  thou  nation  hardened 
with  iniquity.  Ye  neglect,  aye,  ye  loath  the  Holy  One  of  Israel ; 
ye  have  turned  backwards  .  .  .  Your  land  lies  waste,  your  cities 
burned  down,  your  harvest,  strangers  consume  it  .  .  .  Zion 
is  lonesome,  as  a  cottage  of  the  vineyard,  as  a  besieged  city. 
Except  the  Lord  has  left  us  some  remnant,  we  may  soon  liken 
to  Sodom  and  Gomorrah.” — (Jeremiah,  17.)  :  “The  sin  of  Ju¬ 
dah  is  written  down  with  an  iron  style,  yea,  with  a  pointed  dia¬ 
mond.  It  is  engraven  upon  their  heart,  even  upon  the  very  cor¬ 
ners  of  their  altars.  Their  children  even  remember  the  groves 
and  high  hills  (of  the  idols).  O  ye  beautiful  fields  and  moun¬ 
tains  your  treasures  and  substance  shall  he  carried  away, a  booty! 
.  .  .  Israel,  ousted  thou  shalt  be  from  thy  own  inheritance,  en¬ 
slaved  to  thy  enemy,  in  a  country  thou  knowest  not.” — And  this 
vehemence,  this  impetuosity  of  the  preacher,  as  a  torrent  rush¬ 
ing  down  from  a  mountain-top,  does  not  indicate  that  Judaea 
was  more  sinful  than  Phoenicia  or  Egypt.  Ho,  just  the  con¬ 
trary  ;  wherever  the  moralist  is  more  outspoken,  the  people  is 
more  moral  and  enlightened.  The  liberty  of  speech  points  to  the 
desire  of  the  auditors  to  listen  and  improve.  The  occasion  for 
improvement  brings  improvement.  A  nation  rich  in  great  and 
holy  men  and  teachers  must  become  great  and  holy.  You  can¬ 
not  improve  men  hut  by  hard  blows.  Compare  even  the  Al-Het, 
the  Jewish  confession  on  the  high  holidays.  There  the  confessor 
does  not  unctuously  acknowledge  that  he  had  been  a  pattern  of 
meekness,  self-righteousness  and  benefaction.  The  Hebrew  view 
is  that  “there  is  no  man  living  that  does  not  sin,”  no  man  is 
sinless,  God  alone  is  infallible.  Humbly,  contritely  and  broken- 
heartedly  every  man  confesses  and  acknowledges  that  he  has 
done,  committed  and  perpetrated  sin !  wrong !  crime !  He  is 
ashamed  of  it,  asks  pardon  and  forgiveness  for  it,  on  the  great 
judgment-day,  barefooted  and  prostrated  at  the  feet  of  Ihvh. 


262 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


Such  a  contrition,  such  a  confession  and  on  such  a  day,  in  the 
long  run,  will  do  good,  will  improve.  But  never  will  the  luke¬ 
warm,  sugar-coated  confession  of  the  Egyptian  penitent,  pre¬ 
scribed  by  the  soft-tongued,  candy-tuned  Egyptian  priest,  before 
the  over-indulgent  and  facile  Osiris,  god  of  love  and  pardon. 

Let  us  quote  a  few  more  instances  from  leading  Orientalists : 
(Ibid.,  190)  :  “In  the  same  Book  of  the  Dead,  we  find  both  opin¬ 
ions  represented  (viz,  religion  as  myth,  ceremony,  charms  and 
witchcraft,  and  religion  as  a  higher  theology,  morality  and  good 
deeds).  In  its  earlier  chapters  paradise  is  gained  by  magical 
powers  and  offerings;  from  the  125th  chapter  onwards  the  test 
of  righteousness  is  a  moral  one.  The  dead  man  has  to  be  ac¬ 
quitted  by  his  conscience.” — (191)  :  “The  soul  is  justified  or 
condemned  for  the  deeds  it  had  done  in  the  flesh  .  .  .  Moral 
purity,  not  ceremonial  one,  is  required  .  .  .  Religion  and  mo¬ 
rality,  for  the  first  time,  are  united  in  one.” 

(244)  :  Professor  Maspero  says:1  /‘When  we  put  aside  the 
popular  superstitions  and  ascertain  but  the  fundamental  doc¬ 
trines  of  Egypt,  we  find  them  to  be  very  exalted  .  .  .  The 
Egyptians  adored  a  Being  that  was  unique,  perfect,  endowed 
with  absolute  knowledge  and  intelligence,  and  incomprehensible 
to  man’s  powers.  He  is  the  One  who  exists  essentially,  who  lives 
substantially,  sole  generator  of  heaven  and  earth,  himself  not 
generated,  immutable,  ever  perfect,  ever  present  in  the  past  and 
in  the  future,  without  a  form,  still  filling  the  universe,  felt 
everywhere  and  perceived  nowhere.”  .  .  . 

Thus  far  it  is  almost  identical  with  the  Mosaic  God-concep¬ 
tion,  if,  indeed,  the  Professor’s  estimate,  or  rather  the  Egyptian 
decipherments  and  reading  can  be  fully  relied  upon.  It  is  al¬ 
most  Mosaic,  except  its  pantheistic  underground  and  by-tone. 
At  any  rate,  it  was  a  very  exalted  God-ideal.  But  soon  began 
the  equivocations.  The  several  nomes,  princes,  temples  and  peo¬ 
ples  needed  their  many  gods,  and  the  philosophers  had  to  yield. 
The  priests  needed  room  for  their  polytheism,  to  square  it  with 
the  popular  superstitions  and  the  many  dominant  churches, 
hence  these  qualifications  and  equivocations.  They  lacked  the 
“'Etudes  de  Mythology  et  Archteology  Egyptiennes,”  II.,  446-447. 


MORALITY  IN  RELIGION. 


263 


backbone  of  the  Hebraic  prophets.  Professor  Maspero  contin¬ 
ues  there:  “Unique  in  essence,  be  is  not  unique  in  person.  He 
is  father  because  be  exists  ...  be  is  eternally  begetting  and 
never  exhausted  .  .  .  finding  in  bis  own  bosom  the  material 
for  bis  perpetual  fatherhood.  Alone  in  the  plenitude  of  bis  be¬ 
ing,  be  conceives  his  offspring;  from  all  eternity  be  produces 
himself  in  another  self.  He  is  at  once  divine  father,  mother  and 
son.  These  three  persons  are  God  in  God,  and  far  from  divid¬ 
ing  the  primitive  unity,  all  three  combine  to  constitute  his  infi¬ 
nite  perfection  .  .  .  Doubtless  the  uneducated  classes  could  not 
understand  it.” — But  they  misunderstood  it  and  construed  it 
into  myth,  their  old  polytheism  and  later  into  Christian  Trin¬ 
ity.  Never  did  it  create  Mosaism,  monotheism  nor  the  Deca¬ 
logue,  nor  democracy,  conscience  or  freedom.  It  did  not  come 
out  plain  and  straight,  did  not  brush  away  the  mythologic  cob¬ 
webs;  so  the  poor  people,  misled,  were  caught  in  its  entangling, 
glittering,  silken  meshes. —  (246)  :  “God,  as  generator,  is  called 
Ammon ;  as  the  All-Intelligence,  he  is  Imhotep ;  as  accomplish¬ 
ing  all  things,  he  is  Phthah ;  as  beneficent,  he  is  Osiris  .  .  . 
Behind  the  sensuous  appearance,  nature,  the  thinker  beheld  con¬ 
fusedly  a  Being  obscure  and  sublime,  whose  full  comprehension 
is  denied  to  him,  and  this  feeling  of  the  divine  incomprehensi¬ 
bleness  rendered  his  prayer  deep,  thrilling,  sincere  and  touch¬ 
ing  in  thought  and  in  emotion.” 

Maspero,  Egypt  and  Moses. 

These  fine  passages  of  Professor  Maspero,  if  even  assumed 
as  correct  and  corresponding  to  facts  that  he  has  happily  sifted 
the  wheat  from  the  chaff,  and  given  us  the  essence  and  pith  of 
Egyptian  cosmological  wisdom,  show  that  wisdom  to  be  at  best 
Hindu-Pantheism,  not  monotheism  and  not  identical  with  Mo¬ 
saism,  nor  their  model  and  pattern;  just  as  little  as  Babylonian 
myths  are.  Poetry  discarded,  that  Egyptian  theologico-philo- 
sophical  scheme  is  the  Brahman  and  Creation  of  the  Vedanta 
system  and  of  Manu ;  it  is  the  Qabbalistical  Ain-soph  with  the 
irradiated  Sephiroth  and  the  emanated  universe ;  it  is  the  Gnos¬ 
tic  God-father,  God-mother,  and  God-son  creating  the  bodily 


264  HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 

world ;  it  is  the  well-known  Osiris,  Isis  and  Horns  of  old  Egypt ; 
it  is  the  identical  material  of  the  later  ecclesiastical  Trinity  of 
the  ISTicaean  Council  of  325  P.  C.  And,  above  all,  it  is  the  an¬ 
tique,  Oriental,  unmitigated,  unalloyed  pantheism  of  India.  It 
is  in  no  wise  Mosaic  monotheism,  the  personal  God,  freely,  wise¬ 
ly  and  benignly  creating  the  universe  externally,  the  world  out 
of  Himself,  which  He  alone  rules  and  governs,  is  its  Providence 
and  Lawgiver,  for  the  welfare  of  its  creatures.  Professor  Mas- 
pero’s  Egyptian  sketch  is  tine,  admirable  philosophy,  but  poor, 
impractical  religion.  It  leaves  no  room  and  offers  no  motive 
and  scope  for  effort,  virtue,  noble  human  aspirations — just  as 
Spinoza’s  system  does.  It  creates  no  influential  church,  no 
strong  society  and  no  free  man.  That  philosophical  God-and- 
world-concept  of  the  Mile  is  a  great  advance  over  the  Babylonian 
mythology,  as  reviewed  above.  Still,  they  fall  short,  by  far,  of 
Mosaism.  In  the  Egyptian  Booh  of  the  Dead  we  do  find  many 
of  the  good  and  strong  elements  of  the  later  Biblical  and  Rab¬ 
binical  laws  and  ethics.  But  they  serve  merely  as  a  compro¬ 
mise  with  an  upholstered,  clumsy  polytheism,  mixed  up  with  all 
its  superstitious  alloy.  The  salient,  grand  idea  of  duty,  “Thou 
shalt,”  the  Mosaic  Categoric  Imperative,  they  knew  not.  It  is 
no  square,  compact,  practical,  organic  constitution  for  a  live  so¬ 
ciety,  as  is  the  Decalogue,  or  even  as  is  its  paraphrase,  the  19th 
chapter  of  Leviticus.  It  is  but  a  sugar-coated,  vapid,  hazy 
ideal  of  self-righteousness  and  hypocrisy.  The  Mosaic  Law¬ 
giver  may  have  known  these  Egyptian  speculations,  propounded 
as  they  were  close  at  his  gates.  But  he  did  not  either  imitate 
nor  admire  them.  Long  before  the  Geneva  philosopher,  he  said : 
“I  take  my  property  wherever  I  find  it.”1  The  best  of  the  an¬ 
cient  civilizations  from  wherever  it  hailed  he  utilized,  sifted, 
purified  from  the  dross,  increased,  harmonized  and  transfigured 
with  his  own  national,  divine  inspirations  and  traditions,  and 
out  of  all  that  material  were  gradually  constructed  Mosaism, 
earlier  Rabbinism,  Judaism,  the  foundation  stones  of  the  future 
religion  of  humanity. 


'J.  J.  Rousseau :  “Je  prends  mon  bien  partout  ou  je  le  trouve.” 


PROFESSOR  SAYCE  CONCLUDED. 


265 


Professor  Sayce  Concluded. 

In  his  quoted  book  (pages  247-9)  Professor  Sayce  continues: 
“In  the  Osirian  Creed  we  have  the  first  recognition  by  religion 
that  what  God  requires  is  uprightness  of  conduct  .  .  .  lie  is 
Un-nefer,  the  Good  Being.  In  the  conflict  with  Evil,  he,  ap¬ 
parently,  was  worsted ;  but  though  he  had  died  a  shameful  death, 
that,  his  disciples  believed,  he  had  endured  on  their  behalf,  pre¬ 
paring  for  them  a  happier  Egypt,  without  sin,  pain  and  death. 
The  belief  in  the  miraculous  birth,  by  a  virgin,  of  a  divine  Pha¬ 
raoh  is  there  repeatedly  to  be  found.  Many  kings  called  them¬ 
selves  sons  of  the  Sun-god,  by  virgin  mothers;  so  did  the  kings 
of  the  fifth  and  sixth  dynasties.  The  Theban  monarchs  claimed 
the  same  origin,  a  virgin  mother  and  God  Ammon. ” — (250)  : 
“The  Egyptians  are  among  the  few  inventive  races  of  mankind, 
pioneers  of  civilization.  We  owe  to  them  the  doctrines  of  ema- 
natiton,  trinity,  God  manifested  in  three  persons,  thought  as  the 
substance  of  all  things ;  Gnosticism,  Alexandrianism,  Christian 
metaphysics  and  the  philosophy  of  Hegel,  have  their  roots  in  the 
Valley  of  the  Nile.  Still  their  eyes  were  blinded  by  symbolism, 
their  sight  was  dulled  by  overmuch  reverence  for  the  past.” 
(Their  nobler  ideas  were  not  self-evolved,  but  bequeathed  by  the 
past,  and  confusedly  mixed  up  with  their  popular  superstitions. 
Such  better  ideas  originated  in  the  Hindu  philosophy  of  the 
Vedanta.)  “They  ended  with  materialism  and  scepticism,  or 
with  prosaic  superstitions  of  a  decadent  age.  Others  took  up 
their  task  and,  like  the  elements  of  our  civilization,  those  of 
our  religious  thought  may  be  traced  to  the  dwellers  on  the  Nile.” 

Thus  we  have  given  here  a  close  survey  of  some  of  the  best 
masters  of  both  Egyptology  and  Assyriology,  in  order  to  enable 
uur  reader  to  judge  for  himself  whether  it  is  true  or  not,  that 
the  leading,  Mosaic  doctrines  and  institutions  are  of  Babylonian 
or  Egyptian  origin  and  derivation.1 

Egypt,  Babylonia  and  Bible. 

What  now  is  our  conclusion  concerning  the  relation  of  Baby¬ 
lonia  and  Egypt  and  their  influence  upon  Biblical  doctrines  and 
legislation  ?  It  is  this :  Long  before  Israel  and  Mosaism,  the  an- 
*See  our  remarks  in  V.  Mos.,  X,  “Study  on  the  Golden  Calf.” 


266 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


cient  civilized  world,  India,  Egypt,  Babylonia,  Phoenicia,  Ca¬ 
naan,  well  knew  what  is  right  and  what  is  wrong.  The  superior 
priestly  thinkers  and  philosophers  surmised  and  saw  as  through 
a  veil  that  all  the  forces  and  agents  of  nature  center  in  the  One 
mysterious  Supreme  Power,  omnipresent,  omniscient  and  perfect. 
But  to  the  masses  the  priests  taught  hut  veiled  truths,  myths, 
for  many  reasons  and  considerations.  They  promised  them  ab¬ 
solution  and  paradise,  if  they  but  believed,  confessed  and  payed 
tithes.  Here  their  task  ended.  Otherwise  were  Israel  and  Mo- 
saism.  The  priestly  office  of  teaching,  improving  and  enlighten¬ 
ing  the  people,  elsewhere  dallied  with  and  played  away  for  a 
pot  of  lintels,  the  Hebrew  teachers,  lawgivers,  prophets,  priests, 
rabbis  and  schools,  took  up  in  full  earnest.  They  ever  held  up 
the  ideal :  “Ye  shall  be  unto  me  a  kingdom  of  priests  and  holy 
people.”  They  did  not  sweetly  and  graciously  assume,  as  did 
the  Egyptian  priests  or  the  would-be  Hebrew  ones  following 
Korah,1  that  the  masses  know  and  do  their  duty.  Ho,  they 
spoke  as  did  Isaiah,  Elijah,  Jeremiah,  Micha:  Here  is  the  law, 
here  the  rule  of  conduct !  Act  up  to  it,  or  you  will  have  to  abide 
by  the  dire  consequences  that  surely  will  follow;  God  is  long-suf¬ 
fering  and  forbearing,  but  he  forgets  not;2  crime  and  error,  lies, 
fraud,  malice  and  meanness,  will  and  must  have  their  results. 
Brethren,  beware !  Here  is  the  difference  between  the  teachers 
and  the  teachings  of  Israel  and  those  of  Egypt  and  Babylonia. 
In  Israel  the  teacher  taught  and  exemplified ;  in  Phoenicia  and 
Babylon  he  dallied  and  cajoled,  flattered  and  closed  an  eye. 
With  Moliere’s  Tartuffe  he  said:  “Heaven  forbids  certain  pleas¬ 
ures,  indeed ;  still  and  nevertheless,  heaven  is  accommodating.”3 
And  this  is  the  great  moral  reason  why  the  temples  and  priest¬ 
hoods  of  Tyre,  the  Nile  and  the  Euphrates  have  crumbled  and 
disappeared,  whilst  the  Biblical  ones  have  taken  deep  roots,  oc¬ 
cupied  their  place  and  will  stand — as  long  as  they  act  up  to 
the  Biblical  spirit.  This  being  the  case,  let  us  then  stop  that 
empty  controversy,  viz :  To  whom  belongs  the  priority  of  teach- 

*IV.  M.,  16.3;  Korah  Dathan  and  Abiram :  “All  the  community  is  holy.” 

*npr  to  npn  n.  m.,  20. 

5Le  ciel  defend  certains  conteutements  mais  on  trouve  avec  lui  des 
accomodements. 


EGYPT,  BABYLONIA  AND  BIBLE. 


267 


ing  the  God  of  the  Bible,  with  morality  and  reason.  The  Jews 
have  invented  neither !  God,  reason  and  morality  are  no  inven¬ 
tions.  None  can  take  out  a  patent  upon  their  discovery.  It  is 
mere  cant  and  self-glorification  to  discuss  and  debate,  whether 
Hindu,  Chinese,  Assyrian,  Persian,  Egyptian  or  Judaean  have 
first  taught  the  highest  religion  and  civilization.  There  is  but 
one  God,  one  religion  and  one  civilization,  and  just  as  the  Bib¬ 
lical  tradition  puts  it,  they  appeared,  dimly,  at  the  very  dawn  of 
the  human  horizon,  since  the  very  time  when  civilized  man  ap¬ 
peared  ;  but  they  shone  sometimes  brighter  and  clearer,  and  at 
other  times  bedimmed  and  obscured  by  myth  and  false  priests, 
by  sycophants  and  rhetoricians.  Israel  has  had,  for  a  long  line 
of  centuries,  the  great  and  onerous  distinction,  the  somber  and 
lurid  honor,  of  producing  prophets,  speakers,  moralists,  teach¬ 
ers,  who  plainly  saw  the  truth  and  spoke  it  plainly.  They  spoke 
it  boldly,  in  the  face  of  king  and  noble,  of  priest  and  soldier; 
in  the  face  of  hunger,  thumbscrew,  dungeon  and  faggot ;  they 
spoke  it  loudly  and  publicly,  not  in  a  whisper  and  as  a  mys¬ 
tery,  not  to  a  class,  but  to  the  people,  to  the  masses  at  large. 
These  plainspoken  prophets  and  preachers  created  Mosaism. 
Picking  out  the  nuggets  and  kernels  of  sterling  truths  from 
among  the  rubbish  on  the  poetic  dunghills  of  myths,  error  and 
priestly  compromise,  from  among  the  ruins  of  the  ancient  tem¬ 
ples,  schools  and  cloisters,  having  sifted  and  polished  and  ad¬ 
justed  them,  then  largely  enriched  them  with  their  own  spiritual 
experiences  and  sacred  inspiration  derived  from  their  will  of 
improving  and  doing  good- — out  of  that  divine  spirit  and  mate¬ 
rial  they  have  created  the  Biblical  ethics,  morality,  theology,  re¬ 
ligion.  This  is  the  work  of  the  prophets  of  Israel;  and  man’s 
entire,  previous  civilization  is  backing  it.  To  say  and  reclaim 
more,  to  apportion,  niggardly,  by  the  inch,  how  much  each 
race  and  sect  has  contributed  to  that  world-religion,  that  is 
odious,  thankless,  useless.  The  prophetic  scheme  intends  to 
unite,  not  to  divide,  mankind ;  faith  is  its  golden  tie. 


268 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


CHAPTER  X. 

Survey  of  the  Mosaic  Humanity  and  Charity  Laws, 

Let  us,  in  conclusion,  have  a  succinct  survey  of  those  Mosaic 
Laws  and  institutions  discussed  above,  which  particularly  aim 
at  fostering  the  feelings  of  humanity,  sympathy,  benefaction 
and  solidarity.  The  leading  principle  of  the  Bible  legislation 
is  absolute  liberty  and  equality  of  the  citizens,  and  all  inhab¬ 
itants  are  citizens ;  one  person  valuing  exactly  as  much  as  an¬ 
other.  Hence,  life  for  life,  death  for  death ;  compensation  in 
money  for  murder,  as  elsewhere,  is  not  accepted  (II  M.,  21.12). 
One  person’s  limb,  eye,  tooth  or  hand  is  just  as  much  worth  as 
another  person’s  (II  M.,  21.24).  The  Talmud  argued  that, 
practically,  compensation  is  to  be  made,  in  money,  for  a  hurt  in 
limb;  still  on  the  principle  of  equality.1  Upon  the  same  prin¬ 
ciple  is  enacted :  The  Hebrew  slave  shall  go  free  after  six  years 
of  servitude  (II  M.,  21.20). — The  Hebrew  female  slave  must 
be  married  by  the  master  or  by  his  son,  or  go  out  free  (II  M., 
21.7).  The  male  and  female  servant  must  be  treated  kindly, 
as  a  brother  and  a  sister  are,  during  those  six  years,  and  no 
hard  slave-work  imposed  upon  them  (III  M.,  25.39  and  42; 
Maimonid.  Yad.  on  Slavery). — The  Gentile  slave  killed  out¬ 
right  by  his  master  shall  be  avenged  by  the  death  of  the  slayer. 
If  hurt  in  limb,  even  causing  the  loss  of  a  tooth,  he  shall  leave, 
free  (II  M.,  21.27). — The  thief  breaking  into  a  house  during 
the  night  may  be  smitten  and,  if  killed,  there  is  no  guilt  of 
murder.  But  if  in  daytime,  that  is  murder  (except  in  self-de¬ 
fense,  the  Talmud  argues)  (Ex.,  22.1). — Stealing  of  goods  en¬ 
tails  double  payment  of  the  property,  if  found  yet  intact  with 
the  thief.  If  sold  or  destroyed,  the  payment  is  five-fold  for  cat¬ 
tle,  four-fold  for  a  lamb  (on  account  of  their  importance  to  the 
farmer).  If  he  has  nothing  to  pay  with,  the  thief  is  sold  to 
make  up  that  amount  in  labor,  but  not  to  over  six  years’  servi¬ 
tude;  his  body,  his  limbs,  his  life,  his  freedom  and  his  family 

‘See  introduction  of  Rambam  to  Sedar  Zerairn,  where  that  interpretation 
is  claimed  as  immemorial. 


SURVEY  OF  MOSAIC  HUMANITY. 


269 


cannot  be  touched ;  only  property  answers  for  property,  not  life 
or  limb,  or  personal  freedom  for  property :  the  view  of  democ¬ 
racy  (IT  M.,  22.1,  and  21.37). — Seduction  of  a  maiden  entails 
marriage,  or  if  her  father  objects  to  that,  the  payment  of  a  vir¬ 
gin’s  dowry  (Ibid.,  22.15). — The  stranger  (alien,  non-Jew) 
shall  not  be  over-reached,  wronged  or  vexed  (22.19). — Widows 
and  orphans  shall  not  be  oppressed,  but  actively  befriended,  for 
God  ever  listens  to  their  cry  and  avenges  their  wrongs  (22.21). 
Lend  your  money  and  goods  to  a  neighbor,  even  a  non- Jew, 
without  usury,  and  all  increase,  profit  or  interest  is  usury 
(22. 2d). — The  Salma ,  shawl  or  cloak  taken  in  pledge,  must  be 
returned  every  evening  (22.25),  that  being  needed  for  the 
night. — The  Talmud  extends  this  exemption  law  to  other  nec¬ 
essary  articles. — In  II  M.,  23,  the  following  is  to  our  point: 
Not  to  take  up,  disseminate  and  scatter  false  rumors  and  gossip, 
or  conspire  for  false  testimony  (v.  1). — Not  to  go  with  the  ma¬ 
jority  and  the  masses  for  biased  judgment  (v.  2)  (The  Talmud 
interprets  that  as  requiring  a  majority  of  two  for  death  pen¬ 
alty).  Not  to  favor  the  poor  at  law  (v.  3). — To  return  the  ene¬ 
my’s  ox  etc.  to  his  owner  (4). — To  help  release  the  enemy’s 
beast  succumbing  under  its  burden  (5). — Not  to  slight  the  right 
of  the  poor  (6). — Not  to  aggrieve  the  alien  (non-Jew),  but  to 
sympathize  with  him  (9). — Every  seventh  year  not  to  till  and 
work  the  ground ;  and  to  leave  its  spontaneous  growth  to  the 
poor  and  the  beast  (11). — Every  seventh  week-day  to  stop  all 
labor,  that  the  beast,  the  slave  and  the  stranger  may  rest  and 
recuperate  (12). 

We  come  now  to  similar  verses  in  V  M.,  21 :  A  female  (non- 
Jewish)  captive  may  be  married,  but  treated  in  every  respect  as 
a  wife;  allowing  her  fair  time  to  settle  and  prepare  for  her 
altered  conditions.  She  cannot  be  treated  as  a  harlot,  or  a  slave, 
or  be  given  away  to  another,  once  the  captor  has  lived  with  her.1 
(10) — A  man  of  two  wives  cannot  arbitrarily  change  the  right 
of  primogeniture  to  the  younger  son,  he  cannot  substitute  the 
son  of  the  loved  wife  for  that  of  the  disliked  one.  He  must 

'In  Homer,  the  victorious  heroes  acted  so,  even  Agamemnon,  Achilles, 
Neoptolemus.  So  acted  Romans,  Carthaginians  etc. 


270 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


abide  bj  the  natural  fact.  (15) — A  wayward,  rebellious  son 
can  be  punished  even  with  stoning,  but  not  by  the  parents,  and 
only  after  a  judicial  condemnation.  (18) — The  Talmud,  argu¬ 
ing  from  the  letter,  rendered  that  hoary  remnant  law  nigh  im¬ 
possible,  the  usual  method  of  disestablishing  an  obsolete  para¬ 
graph.  A  condemned  and  executed  person  must  be  buried  on 
the  very  evening  after  his  death.  (23) — Anything  found  must 
be  taken  up  and  returned  to  its  owner.  (V  M.,  22.3) — A 
bird’s-nest  found,  the  young  may  be  taken  away,  but  the  mother 
must  be  allowed  to  escape.  (6) — It  is  not  allowed  to  till  the 
ground  with  an  ox  and  an  ass  together  (10),  for  they  do  not 
pull  alike.— Spreading  disrepute  upon  an  innocent,  recently 
wedded  maiden,  entails  a  severe  whipping,  with  a  heavy  fine 
and  loss  of  the  right  ever  to  divorce  her  (19). — V  M.,  23, 
reads :  “Do  not  hate  an  Edomite,  he  is  thy  brother ;  or  an  Egyp¬ 
tian,  for  as  a  stranger  thou  hast  lived  in  his  land.  Their  third 
generations  may  intermarry  with  the  Hebrew  community.  (8) 
— Deliver  not  a  fugitive  slave  to  his  master  when  he  seeks  an 
asylum  with  thee;  let  him  abide  in  thy  gates  wherever  he 
pleases,  vex  him  not.  (17) — Take  no  interest  on  money,  or 
profit  on  any  goods  from  thy  brother;  of  the  foreigner  (mer¬ 
chant,  Assyrian,  Egyptian  or  Phoenician)  thou  mayest  take  in¬ 
terest;  of  thy  (native,  poor)  brother,  not,  that  God  may  bless 
thee  (20). 

V  M.,  24.1,  reads:  A  man  displeased  with  his  wife  for  (her 
strongly)  indecent  conduct  (ervath  dabar),  may  dismiss  her,  by 
a  judicial  act  of  divorcement;  if  she  marries  another  one 
anti  becomes  a  widow,  or  is  a  second  time  divorced,  the  first 
husband  cannot  remarry  her  (as  at  that  time  customary  in  Ara¬ 
bia),  this  being  an  abomination  to  God  (and  undignified  to 
the  character  of  womanhood.) — (Ibid.,  24.5)  A  recently  mar¬ 
ried  man  shall  not  be  levied  to  the  army  during  all  the  first 
year  of  his  marriage,  in  order  that  he  may  rejoice  with  his 
newly  wedded  companion. — It  was  in  a  crisis  of  the  French 
Revolution  when  heroic  General  Joubert  celebrated  his  nup¬ 
tials,  and  at  once  departed  to  the  army ;  the  next  day  he  fell  in 
battle.  The  people  justly  felt  indignant  at  that  lack  of  humane 


SURVEY  OF  MOSAIC  HUMANITY. 


271 


consideration. — Same  exemption  is  in  building  a  new  house. — 
Thou  shalt  not  take  in  pledge  the  mill-stones,  for  that  is  pawn¬ 
ing  life  (6). — The  creditor  shall  not  come  into  the  house  of  the 
debtor  to  get  his  pledge,  but  he  shall  stay  outside,  and  the  debtor 
shall  bring  it  out  to  him;  and  if  he  is  poor,  it  must  be  returned 
to  him  for  the  night,  that  he  may  sleep  with  his  Salma  (cloak) 
(all  this  proves  the  hoary  primitiveness  of  the  law,  humble  and 
simple,  in  small  circumstances)  and  God  will  account  it  to  thee 
as  righteousness  (10). — Withhold  not  the  pay  of  thy  poor  broth¬ 
er,  the  workman,  or  of  thy  stranger ;  pay  him  on  the  same  day, 
he  needs  it,  that  he  appeal  not  to  God,  and  that  will  be  ac¬ 
counted  to  thee  as  a  sin  (15). — The  parent  shall  not  die  for  the 
children,  nor  the  children  for  the  parents ;  every  one  dies  for 
his  own  guilt  (10). — Throughout  antiquity  the  entire  family 
suffered  for  the  guilt  of  each  of  its  members.  Despotism  held 
the  family,  yea,  the  community,  responsible  for  the  deeds  and 
omissions  of  its  single  members,  thus  enacting  the  principle  of 
solidarity  for  bad,  not  for  good.  This  we  find  in  the  Laws  of 
Hammurabi  and  of  the  Roman  XII  Tables.  Mosaism  which  eth¬ 
ically,  in  the  body  politic,  recognized  that  social  principle  of 
solidarity  between  the  fellow-citizens,  rejected  it  in  legal,  in¬ 
dividual,  private  affairs. — Xot  to  bend  the  right  of  the  stranger 
and  the  orphan,  and  not  to  take  in  pledge  the  garment  of  a 
widow  (18). — Part  of  the  crops  belonged,  by  right,  not  as  an 
alms,  to  the  stranger,  the  poor,  the  widow  and  orphan ;  this  were 
notable  parts  of  the  flocks  and  the  crops,  under  different  names, 
as  firstlings,  gleanings,  forgotten  sheaves,  the  corners  of  the 
field,  the  remnants  of  the  fruit  etc.  (19-22). 

(V  M.,  25.)  The  evil-doer  condemned  to  a  whipping  shall 
not  receive  over  forty  stripes  (thirty-nine  Talmudically,  and 
often  much  reduced  at  the  advice  of  a  physician),  “that  thv 
brother  shall  not  be  lowered  in  thine  eyes”  (3) — sympathy, 
even  with  the  guilty  one ! — Muzzle  not  thy  ox  when  he  threshes 
thy  grain  (4) — sympathy  with  the  brute!  Two  brothers  living 
together  and  one  of  them,  dying,  leaves  a  wife  without  children, 
the  surviving  brother  shall  marry  her ;  first  that  she  shall  not 
be  homeless,  and  next  that  her  first  child  to  be  bom,  shall  keep 


272 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


alive  the  name  of  the  dead  brother  (5-11). — Considering  the 
ancient  social  and  agrarian  conditions,  what  sweet  sympathy 
does  not  this  show  with  the  dead  brother,  and  the  widowed 
sister ! 

(V  M.,  26)  The  firstlings  of  the  harvest  are  to  be  brought 
to  the  Temple,  at  stated  periods  of  the  Hebraic  cycle  of  seven 
years  (Shemitta).  Tithes  were  to  be  given  to  the  Levites,  the 
poor,  the  stranger,  the  widow  and  orphan. — The  three  yearly 
festivals  were  gatherings  of  the  nation  for  humane  conviviality 
and  fellowship,  the  nurturing  of  the  sense  of  communion,  sym¬ 
pathy,  solidarity  and  nationality;  the  wealthy  “together  with 
the  poor,  the  stranger,  widow,  orphan  etc.”  Finally  every  fif¬ 
tieth  year  the  Jubilee  was  celebrated,  as  the  epoch  of  universal 
rehabilitation  and  restoration  to  full  freedom  of  the  enslaved, 
restoration  of  houses,  farms  and  lands  to  their  original  owners 
and  cancellation  of  debts ;  an  economical  revolution  and  reha¬ 
bilitation,  restoring  all  the  members  of  the  nation  to  their  pris¬ 
tine  liberty,  equality  and  democracy.  Here  we  have  gathered 
some  of  the  leading  passages  of  the  II.  and  of  the  V.  Books  of 
Moses  on  our  theme,  passing  by  a  great  many  others,  scattered 
in  the  Pentateuch.  Come,  ye  philanthropists,  philosophers,  po¬ 
litical  economists,  Socialists,  dreamers  of  the  millenium,  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  on  earth.  Come  and  examine  this  socio- 
ethical  scheme  of  your  great  predecessor  of  3,000  years  ago. 
Are  there  not  some  practical,  solid  suggestions  concerning  our 
own  Social  Problems  ?  “An  inalienable  family-acre,”  a  “Year 
of  Release,”  a  “Jubilee  of  restoration  and  universal  rehabilita¬ 
tion,”  a  Sabbath  for  all;  a  family  without  divorce  or  frivolity; 
work  and  no  charity,  religion  without  priest-craft,  no  monopoly 
and  no  ostracism !  Could  that  not  be  tried  with  many  chances  of 
success  ?  Does  not  the  Pentateuch  contain  good  material  for  the 
future  reconstruction,  just  in  this  vast  but  half-occupied  Amer¬ 
ica,  of  a  happier,  wiser,  nobler  humanity,  without  race,  creed 
and  class  discriminations,  without  plutocracy  and  pauperism, 
without  bitter  greed,  envy  and  competition,  without  armies,  pol¬ 
iticians  and  wars?  a  society  of  free,  educated,  working,  think¬ 
ing  and  enjoying  men  and  women!  “Everyone  dwelling  under 


SURVEY  OF  MOSAIC  HUMANITY. 


273 


his  vine  and  his  fig  tree,  with  none  to  be  afraid  of !”  All  knights 
of  labor,  brain  and  heart ! 

CHARACTER  OF  THE  BIBLICAL  AND  TALMUDICAL 
BENEVOLENCE. 

The  Biblical  Commonwealth  hardly  knows  of  charity  in  our 
modern  sense,  namely,  as  almsgiving,  daily-routine  gifts  to  pau¬ 
pers,  spendings  for  chronic  beggars  wandering  from  door  to 
door,  people  never  self-supporting,  ever  a  charge  and  a  bur¬ 
den  to  the  community,  the  result  of  our  deficient  economics, 
our  social  discriminations  and  cruel  competition ;  at  other 
times  the  result  of  sickness,  lack  of  training,  habitual  lazi¬ 
ness,  or  native  stupidity.  Mostly  such  poverty  is  forced  upon 
those  socially  or  legally  ostracised  and  incapacitated  to  enter  the 
arena  and  fight  the  battle  of  existence.  Of  that  vast  army  of 
rarely  wilful  and  mostly  innocent  professional  beggars,  the  Mo¬ 
saic  community  knew  little.  There  the  citizens  were  to  be  all 
equal  and  free,  before  the  law,  and  in  the  chances  for  success 
and  the  pursuit  of  happiness.  The  great  social  rule  was  to  be : 
“Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself.”  This  means  rational 
solidarity;1  that  includes  mutual  interest,  reciprocal  benefac¬ 
tions,  live  and  let  live.  The  Mosaic  State  bestowed  on  each  in¬ 
dividual  citizen  an  acre  of  ground  in  perpetuity,  a  farm  to  be 
cultivated,  as  a  livelihood  for  himself,  his  family  and  his  poster¬ 
ity.  He  and  they  enjoyed  its  annual  produce,  but  they  could 
not  alienate  it.  If  they  sold  its  crops  in  times  of  distress  or  war, 
it  returned  by  law  to  the  family  within  six  or  at  most,  fifty 
years.2  And  since  war,  booty,  industries  and  commerce  were 
originally  not  much  contemplated  in  the  Mosaic  State’s  house- 
hold,  the  avenues  of  sudden  enrichment  and  impoverishment, 
of  plutocracy  and  pauperism — our  social  problem — were  seem¬ 
ingly  stopped.  There  habitually  reigned  a  proximate  equality 
of  fortunes,  and  no  chronic  classes  of  beggars  and  paupers  could 
for  long  arise  and  exist  in  a  state  thus  constituted,  ethically,  po¬ 
litically  and  economically.3 

■nra  ru  ^3  2The  year  of  Release  and  Jubilee. 

1  3See  my  “  Biblical  Legislation,”  page  8. 


274 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


But  as  human  vicissitudes  are  ever  great,  as  the  unfortunate 
and  the  vicious  will  ever  abound,  the  law  often  repeats  and 
sadly  acknowledges  (II  M.,  15.11)  :  “There  will  never  be  needy 
men  lacking  in  thy  land.”  Therefore  it  recommends  and  en¬ 
joins  again  and  again  sympathy,  mutual  interest  and  benefac¬ 
tions  :  Give  the  poor  of  thy  crops  and  thy  fruits  which  God  be¬ 
stowed  on  thee,  on  the  tacit  condition  to  share  them  with  thy 
less  fortunate  countrymen.  Let  us  well  emphasize  this:  The 
farm  each  citizen  was  granted  by  the  very  constitution  of  the 
state,  the  supreme  owner  of  the  soil,  was  granted  expressly  on 
the  condition  that  part  of  its  produce  shall  forever  belong  to 
the  priestly  and  levitical  class;  to  the  poor,  the  widow,  the  or¬ 
phan  and  the  stranger.  This  was  a  leading  feature  of  the  He¬ 
braic  Society.  The  legislator  and  the  prophets  often  enough 
refer  to  it.  To  transgress  it  was  not  simply  lack  of  charity,  but 
of  justice,  a  breach  of  the  constitution.  The  tenure  of  land  was 
conditioned  by  the  paying  of  tithes ;  just  as  in  the  Middle  Ages, 
the  tenure  of  land  was  conditioned  by  fealty  and  service  to  the 
suzerain,  the  supreme  owner  of  the  conquered  land.  If  the 
tenant  failed  in  his  duty,  the  Suzerain  could  confiscate  the  prop¬ 
erty.  Just  so  the  prophets,  the  divinely  instituted  stewards  of 
the  wronged  poor,  threatened  with  confiscation  of  the  land  by 
the  conquering  enemy,  as  the  divine  executor.  Besides  this, 
the  law  ordains,  considering  that  poverty  is  unavoidable,  “lend 
thy  brother  money  and  goods,  without  any  profit  or  usury.”  All 
profiting  by  a  neighbor’s  distress  is  usury.  “In  harvesting, 
leave  to  the  poor  the  field-corner  and  the  gleaning  .  .  .  Fear 
God  and  take  no  profit  of  the  needy.”  Thus  benevolence  and 
charity  are  termed  in  later  Jewish  social  developments :  Zc- 
daka,  Gemiloth  Ilassodim.  Zedaka  may  be  best  rendered  by 
charity,  and  Gemiloth  Ilassodim  by  benevolence;  but  they  are 
really  synonyms ;  in  fact  either  is  an  expression  for  a  compound 
kind  deed  of  pity,  justice,  sympathy,  benefaction  and  charity; 
it  is  equity  permeated  with  love, egoism  mitigated  with  altruism, 
the  feeling  of  human  solidarity,  the  duty  to  “live  and  let  others 
live.”  And  this  Zedaka  is  not  poetry,  not  a  mere  ideal,  a  flower 
from  Utopia  land.  Ho,  it  is  a  commandment,  a  positive  social 


BIBLICAL  AND  TALMUDICAL  BENEVOLENCE. 


275 


duty.1  Every  citizen  is  bound  to  Zcdaka,  as  to  the  other  social 
rules  and  communal  laws.  So,  indeed,  in  the  earlier  Biblical 
and  the  later  Talmudical  communal  arrangements,  the  Gabai 
Zedaka  were  picked  out,  most  honorable  men,  specially  ap¬ 
pointed  as  guardians  and  chiefs  of  the  community,  as  a  stand¬ 
ing,  permanent  and  respected  board  of  officers  to  collect,  even 
forcibly,  contributions  for  the  support  of  the  necessitous,  to 
which  every  one  was  bound  to  offer  his  mite,  except  those  very 
poor  themselves  and  deprived  of  sufficient  means  of  self-sup¬ 
port.  Nay,  according  to  Rabbinical  law,  even  the  poor  were 
not  exempted  from  such  duty.  They  received  and  they  gave 
charity.  This  benevolence  committee,  termed  Gabai-Zedaka, 
played  a  big  part  in  the  Jewish  community  of  old.  The  verse, 
“The  sages  will  shine  as  the  stars  in  the  firmament,”  was  ap¬ 
plied  to  them  (Baba  Bathra,  8  b;  Daniel,  12)  particularly. 

The  poor  were  of  different  kinds  and  degrees,  many  of  them 
needing  bread,  raiment,  shelter  and  fuel ;  but  others  were  aris¬ 
tocratic  ones,  accustomed  to,  but  now  having  no  means  for,  buy¬ 
ing  luxuries.  Each  class  was  distinguished  by  different  desig¬ 
nations,2  and  all  could  confidently  rely  on  those  public  and  pri¬ 
vate  benefactions,  delivered  at  the  public  kitchen  or  the  money- 
collections.3  The  Talmud  mentions  that,  in  the  Moriah  Temple 
there  was  set  apart  a  chamber  for  such  secret  charities4  intended 
for  respectable  poor,  who  never  saw  their  givers,  to  spare  them 
any  humiliation.  Even  the  heathen  poor  were  fairly  considered 
in  the  distributions,5  as  already  the  Pentateuch  recommended 
the  stranger.6 

Tn  the  preceding  pages  we  have  seen  the  great  solicitude  and 
anxiety  the  Mosaic  Lawgiver  displayed  to  secure  to  the  depend¬ 
ent,  the  slave  and  the  poor,  to  the  widow,  the  orphan,  the  Levite, 
the  stranger  and  the  crippled  one,  their  human  dignity,  their 

'The  reader  will  remember  that  there  every  social  or  civic  duty  was  a 
religious  duty ;  the  Biblical  society  was  a  state,  a  church,  a  people  and  a 
congregation,  with  God  as  King,  law  as  the  norm,  the  priest  as  magistrate, 
and  the  citizen  as  pew  holder.  Only  in  modern  times  priest-craft  has 
taught  us  that  we  must  decentralize  the  powers  and  separate  State  from 
Church  ;  in  the  ancient  states  they  were  one,  just  as  in  nature.  The  Anglo- 
Schottish  dissenters  aspired  for  awhile  to  such  a  theocratic  society,  but  the 
prism  of  modern  experiences  broke  that  unit  into  many  separate  institu¬ 
tions  to  check  each  other  and  maintain  its  equilibrium. 

,}V3N  3Kupa-Timhui.  4D"Ntyn  rDKO 

5Gittin  61  a,  and  Ioreh  Deah.  6III.  M.,  19.9. 


27 6  HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  TENTATEUCH. 

fellowship,  their  self-respect,  the  recognition  of  their  rights, 
wages,  gifts  and  shares  in  the  common  national  wealth.  Such 
they  had  in  the  harvests,  in  the  flocks,  and,  according  to  the  en¬ 
actments  of  the  Talmud,  generally  in  the  income  of  all  the  in¬ 
dustries  and  trades  of  all  the  later  commercial  classes.  It  is 
considered  a  specially  heinous  deed  to  wrong  those  needy,  social 
strata,  and  a  divine  curse  is  launched  against  such  delinquents.1 

To  be  liberal  and  give  to  the  dependent,  the  orphan,  the 
widow,  the  Levite  or  priest  and  the  stranger  is  enjoined  again 
and  again  in  Bible  and  Pentateuch.  To  give  him,  to  lend  him 
without  interest,  cancel  his  debts  on  the  year  of  Release,  invite 
him  to  the  festive  table,  to  the  family-gatherings,  make  him  feel 
at  home,  assist  him  to  be  self-supporting,  screen  him  from  tempo¬ 
rary  want  and  the  injustice  of  the  cunning  and  the  strong,  is 
enjoined  innumerable  times.  “Be  open-handed”  (V  M.,  16.8). 
— “Be  not  close-fisted”  (V  M.,  15.7). — Of  the  good  matron 
is  said:  “Her  hand  she  reaches  out  to  the  needy”  (Prov.,  31. 
20). — The  poor  scholar  is  especially  recommended:  “Who  do¬ 
nates  to  him,  is  as  if  offering  sacrifices”  (Kethuboth,  105  ;  Bera- 
choth,  10). — “Instead  of  offering  wine  on  the  altar,  you  may 
give  it  rather  to  the  poor  scholar”  (Yoma,  71  a). — “God  will 
offer  his  protecting  wing  to  the  pious  under  the  aegis  of  the  sages. 
All  the  prophets  foretold  happiness  to  those  who  confer  bene¬ 
fits  upon  the  sages”  (Berachoth,  10). 

And  the  motive  to  such  charity  must  not  be  ostentation,  self- 
advertisement,  popularity,  but  sympathy,  sincere  pity  with  mis¬ 
ery  and  sickness,  genuine  desire  to  alleviate  and  make  fellow- 
beings  happy,  conscious  solidarity  of  the  human  family :  “Thou 
shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself,”  because  there  is  God,  our 
universal  father,  and  we  are  his  children,  one  universal  brother¬ 
hood.  As  we  sympathize,  love  and  care  for  a  sick  child  even 
more  than  for  a  healthy  one,  even  so  must  we  care  and  yearn 
more  for  the  sick,  forsaken  fellow-man  and  the  penurious  one 
than  for  the  hale,  happy  and  rich  one ;  he  is  still  the  child  of 
God,  even  when  wretched  because  vicious ;  he  is  still  a  brother ; 
even  the  death  for  crime  is  not  brute  revenge,  but  social  self-pro- 


JV.  M.,  27.19. 


BIBLICAL  AND  TALMUDICAL  BENEVOLENCE. 


277 


tection,  and  the  desire  of  appeasing  the  blood  of  the  innocently 
slain.  Such  are  the  aspirations,  motives  and  feelings  of  the  Mo¬ 
saic  charity,  tempered  with  prudence  and  justice.  In  keeping 
with  this  are  the  sayings  of  the  Sages  and  Prophets,  the  Psalms 
and  the  Hagiographs,  of  which  we  quote  here  but  a  few : 

Micha  says  (6.9)  :  “Mayest  thou  understand,  O  man,  what  is 
good  and  what  God  requires  of  thee,  namely,  the  practice  of 
justice,  of  charity  and  of  modesty.” — (Is.,  58)  :  “Indeed,  the 
fasting  I  choose  is  to  loosen  the  intricacies  of  wickedness  and 
the  yoke  of  enslavement,  to  give  bread  to  the  hungry,  and  the 
desolate  poor  to  shelter  in  thy  house ;  to  clothe  the  naked  and  be 
not  estranged  of  thy  (poor)  kindred.” — (Prov.,  22.2)  :  “The 
rich  and  the  poor,  both,  God  has  made.”— (Ps.,  22.24)  :  “God 
despiseth  not  the  poor.” — (Ps.,  12.16)  :  “God  rises  to  rescue  the 
oppressed.” — (Prov.,  17.5)  :  “Who  scoffs  at  the  needy  blas¬ 
phemes  his  Maker.  Who  gives  him,  lends  to  the  Lord.”— (Ps., 
19.10)  :  God  protects  the  poor.  A  Roman  inquired  of  R.  Aqiba : 
“If  your  God  loves  the  poor,  why  does  he  not  support  them  ?” 
“That  we  men  may  have  the  fit  opportunity  for  doing  good  to 
our  fellows,”  the  other  replied.  “But  do  you  not  thus,  rather, 
rebel  against  the  decree  of  God  ?”  “No ;  you  treat  the  oppressed 
as  slaves;  our  law  shows  them  as  children  of  God”  (Baba  Batli- 
ra,  10). —  (II  M.,  22.24):  “It  is  written:  When  thou  loanest 
money  to  my  people  .  .  .  Who  are  my  people  ?  The  poor !” 
(Midr.  Rahb. ;  II  M.,  31). — “The  heaven  is  my  throne  and  the 
earth  my  footstool  .  .  .  but  I  look  to  the  poor  and  the  lowly” 
(Is.,  66.2). 

With  the  dispersion  of  the  Jews,  the  work  of  beneficence  and 
charity  gained  an  immense  impetus  and  expansion,  and  became 
a  leading  communal  activity.  It  joined  the  unfortunate  mem¬ 
bers  of  that  nationality  into  a  veritable  bond  of  brotherhood  and 
solidarity.  The  parole  and  password  of  that  worldwide  frater¬ 
nity  was  Zedaka,  acts  of  benevolence  towards  the  most  unfortu¬ 
nate  of  the  Ghetto.  It  was  the  cornerstone  of  the  Synagogue, 
the  practical  prayer  and  applied  service  of  God.  The  Board  of 
Charity  became  the  leader  of  the  Ghetto  community  (Parnas- 
sim).  To  be  pious,  religious,  God-fearing  and  God-pleasing  was 
identified  as  performing  acts  of  benevolence,  to  do  Zedaka. 


278 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


This  was  the  highest  form  of  divine  service ;  to  be  God-like,  to 
realize  the  perfect  virtue,  the  acme  and  quintessence  of  holiness. 
So,  Isaiah,  5.16:  “The  holy  God  is  sanctified  by  benefactions.” 
— “Who  turns  away  from  charity  commits  idolatry,  quasi” 
(Kethuboth,  61  a).— “Who  gives  alms  participates  in  the  pres¬ 
ence  of  the  Shechina”  (Baba  Bathra,  11  a). — “Ye  shall  follow 
the  eternal  your  God  (V  M.,  13.5).  In  what  way?  As  he  is 
misericordious,  merciful  and  long-suffering,  even  so  be  you  also. 
As  God  clothes  the  naked,  strengthens  the  sick,  consoles  the 
mourning,  do  you  the  same  (Sota,  13  a). — R.  Johanan  b.  Sak- 
kai  taught :  “Charity  is  greater  than  sacrifices,  for  those  atoned 
only  for  Israel,  charity  also  for  the  Gentiles”  (Baba  Bathra, 
10  a). — Rabbi  Assi  said:  “All-important  is  benevolence,  for  it 
outweighs  all  the  commandments”  (Idem.,  13). — “The  best 
seeds  are  benefactions”  (Aboda  Zara,  5). — ’’The  charitable  man 
fills  the  world  with  divine  grace”  (Succah,  49  a). — “The  value 
of  fasting  consists  (essentially)  in  its  accompanying  charity- 
work”  (Berachoth,  6  a). — “Where  no  care  is  taken  of  the  poor, 
no  scholar  shall  dwell”  (Sanhedrin,  17  a). — R.  Johanan  b.  Sak- 
kai,  seeing  his  disciples  weeping  over  the  destruction  of  the 
Moriah  Temple  and  its  atoning  altar,  consoled  them:  “Friends, 
be  not  disconsolate,  still  we  have  a  place  of  atonement  fully 
equal  to  that  destroyed ;  charity  is  its  name ;  as  written,  I  desire 
charity,  not  sacrifices ;  knowledge  of  God,  not  burnt  offerings” 
(Hosea,  6.7 ;  Aboth  de  R.  Nathan,  chapter  4). 

Following  the  Mosaic  enactments  on  the  equal  distribution  of 
the  Palestinian  soil,  granting  to  every  citizen  an  acre  of  land 
for  his  farm  in  perpetuity,  and  requiring  of  him  a  goodly  share 
for  the  priests,  the  Levites,  the  poor  and  the  stranger,  the  Tal¬ 
mud  logically  extended  that  bond  of  solidarity  between  the  rich 
and  the  poor  to  all  acquisitions,  all  sorts  of  wealth,  immovable 
and  movable,  to  profits  and  industries,  property  real  and  per¬ 
sonal,  in  and  out  of  Judaea  and  in  the  world  at  large,  in  the  en¬ 
tire  diaspora.  “Every  Jew  owes  the  tenth  part,  at  least,  of  his 
annual  income  to  the  poor”  (Ioreh  Deah,  249).  They  make  a 
fine  pun  on  it,  much  to  the  point:  “Asser  teasser,”  do  give  the 
tenth,  they  read :  “Asher  teasher” — giving  the  tenth  makes  one 


BIBLICAL  AND  TALMUDICAL  BENEVOLENCE. 


279 


rich,1  a  witty,  spirited  pun,  only  in  the  Hebrew  tongue.  The 
great  modern  ethico-economical  doctrine  of  human  solidarity, 
mutual  sympathy,  warm  interest  in  and  benefactions  to  each 
other,  the  Talmudists  dimly  saw,  as  through  an  azure 
veil,  far  in  advance  of  their  times.  They  expressed  it,  not  as 
Karl  Marx  and  Lasalle,  economically,  but  poetically,  philan- 
thropically :  “Solidarity  is  not  alone  in  the  law  of  Israel  and 
Moses,  but  even  in  the  law  of  nature;  there  all  is  peace,  love, 
harmony ;  day  and  night,  the  seasons,  the  planets,  the  spheres, 
all  act  by  one  divine  spring;  all  assisting  and  supplementing 
each  other,  and  thus  form  one  beautiful  whole,  a  grand  harmony, 
a  world-concert,  wheels  within  wheels,  forces  and  counterforces ; 
all  contribute  and  make  up  one  endless,  well-tuned,  homogeneous 
universe.  Even  to  such  accord  aspires  the  Thora  by  its  golden 
rule  of  “Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself,”  by  its  laws  of 
solidarity,  sympathy  and  love  of  next.”  (Midrash  Rabbotli  to 
II  M.,  31,  and  Tanhuma  to  II  M.,  22.23). 

Talmudical  View  Continued. 

(Raba  Bathra,  9  and  10)  R.  Isaac  says:  “Who  gives  a  far¬ 
thing  to  the  poor  is  blessed  with  six  benedictions ;  and  who 
gives  him  kindly,  sympathetic  words  of  consolation  is  rewarded 
with  eleven  blessings” — a  deep  psychological  utterance.  People 
will  much  more  easily  spend  a  dollar  upon  the  poor  than  a  few 
kindly  sentences  of  sincere  sympathy.  Isaiah,  58.6-11,  is  his 
proof,  containing  such  six  and  eleven  benedictions.  It  is  a  well- 
known  chapter,  coming  out  boldly  and  plainly,  distinguishing 
between  hypocrisy,  formal  piety  and  real  goodness.  There  true 
justice  and  altruism  are  finely  and  masterfully  delineated. 

Isaiah,  56.1,  gives  it  in  a  nutshell:  “Thus  speaks  the  Lord: 
Practice  justice  and  charity,  that  brings  salvation.” — People 
give  easily  enough  to  the  poor,  but  are  slow  of  advocating  the 
truth  and  doing  plain  justice.  Justice  is  greater  and  precedes 
charity.  People  will  remorselessly  ruin  their  neighbor  today, 
and  tomorrow  pauperize  him  with  their  hypocritical  almsgiving. 

'The  verse  ordaining  the  tithes  is  V.  M.,  14.12.  Point  on  left  and  right 
hand :  "it^yn  "IPy-IC^yri  -lt?y-A  fine  Hebrew  Pun  changing  the  sense. 


280 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


A  straw  for  such  benevolence !  It  is  a  mere  screen  and  mask,  a 
cent  of  alms  for  a  dollar  of  stealing ! 

R.  Isaac  continues:  “What  means  (Prov.,  21):  ‘Whoever 
pursues  benevolence  and  mercy  will  find  life,  Zedaka  and  hon¬ 
or’  ?  It  means  whosoever  is  eager  to  be  charitable,  God  will 
grant  him  the  means  to  be  so — and  more,  he  will  ever  find 
worthy  subjects  for  his  benevolent  disposition.” — R.  Josua  ben 
Levi  said:  “Who  makes  it  his  life’s  habit  to  practice  benevo¬ 
lence,  will  have  children  endowed  with  wisdom,  wealth  and 
learning.”  The  above  verse  is  his  text. 

Turnus  Ruphus,  a  Roman  emperor,  asked  R.  Aqiba:  “It  is 
written :  ‘My  slaves  are  ye,  Israel.’  Row,  when  the  king  is  an¬ 
gry  with  his  slave,  puts  him  into  prison,  and  leaves  him  to  hun¬ 
ger  and  starvation,  when  thereupon  a  man  takes  pity  upon  him, 
feeds  him  and  preserves  his  life — is  that  not  sheer  rebellion  ? 
To  this  cruel  parable  R.  Aqiba  replied,  promptly  and  ingenu¬ 
ously,  and  much  more  to  the  point :  ‘Listen  to  my  simile :  A 
king  was  angry  with  his  son  and  ordered  him  to  be  incarcerated 
and  starved ;  then  a  friend  ventured  to  feed  him  and  save  his 
life — will  not  the  king  soon  be  grateful  for  that  ?  Row  mind 
it,  Caesar :  Israel  are  God’s  children — not  slaves !  as  written 
V  M.,  14,  ‘Ye  are  children  of  the  Lord.’  ” — That  is  tactfully 
and  finely  pleaded  for  a  people  under  the  heel  of  Rome.  At  the 
same  time  it  shows  the  sympathetic  thrill  of  the  patriarchal 
teachers  and  people :  “Israel,  children  of  pity,  modesty  and  be¬ 
nevolence”  (Agada). 

Appreciation  of  Poverty* — Jewish  Scholars. 

Sympathetic  and  brimful  with  the  consciousness  of  human 
misery  and  solidarity,  we  read  in  the  Talmud  the  following  ut¬ 
terances  on  poverty:  “There  is  nothing  so  painful  as  poverty; 
it  outweighs  all  other  earthly  misfortunes  put  together”  (Mid¬ 
rash  Rah. ;  TIT  M.,  31). — All  depends  upon  the  disposition  and 
timing  of  our  heart,  and  our  heart  depends  upon  the  condition 
of  our  purse  (Jerusalemi  Teruma,  8.9). — “The  color  of  the 
face  alters  as  soon  as  we  are  in  need  of  another  man”  (Bera- 
choth,  fi  a). — “Who  is  waiting  for  another  man’s  table,  his  life 


JEWISH  SCHOLARS. 


281 


is  darkened;  liis  life  is  not  worth  living”  (Beza,  32). — “Such 
are  especially  those  who  economically  fell  from  their  former 
station”  (Nedarim,  40  a). — “The  means  of  self-help  are  prin¬ 
cipally:  Save,  labor  and  do  any  kind  of  work  and  say  not  'I 
am  a  gentleman’”  (Pesachim,  112  a). — “Make  thy  Sabbath  a 
working  day  and  depend  not  upon  other  men.  It  is  written 
(Ps.,  128)  :  'When  thou  eatest  by  thine  handiwork,  happy  art 
thou  and  hail  to  thee.’  ”  From  this  the  rabbis  learn  that  “honest 
labor  is  the  highest  mode  of  piety.”1  “Let  every  father  take 
care  that  his  son  learn  a  trade  or  profession”  (Kiddushin,  81  a). 
— Many  of  the  greatest  rabbinical  authorities  were  mechanics 
by  trade,  many  more  were  farmers,  toiling  with  their  own 
hands.  Hillel  the  elder  was  a  day-laborer  before  he  became 
Nassi  and  Rector  of  the  Academy.  Of  his  spare  earnings,  he 
saved  to  pay  his  academic  tuition  fees.  One  day  he  had  earned 
nothing  and  hid  on  the  roof  of  the  academy,  listening  to  the 
lectures  within,  having  no  money  to  pay  his  entrance  fee,  and 
was  snowed  in  there  and  half  frozen  (Yoma,  35,  cum  grano 
salis!).  Similar  great  poverty  is  narrated  of  R.  Aquiba  (Aboth 
de  R.  Nathan,  6  and  10).- — Each  of  them,  nevertheless,  became 
the  leader  of  the  nation,  merit  alone  securing  the  highest  office 
in  those  times.  Raban  Gamaliel,  a  very  proud  Nassi,  visited 
his  colleague,  R.  Josua,  and  found  his  home  wretchedly  poor. 
“Why  so  ?”  he  asked.  “Because  thou  art  the  leader  of  this  gen¬ 
eration  !”  pointedly  replied  R.  Josua.2 — R.  Johanan  and  R.  Si¬ 
mon,  famous  teachers,  often  lacked  bread  (Horajoth,  10). — A 
Rector  of  an  academy  admonished  his  hearers  not  to  attend 
school  during  the  agricultural  season,  in  order  to  secure  the 
crop  thereof  and  not  to  starve  (Berachoth,  17). 

Such  lives  lived,  after  the  Prophets  and  Rabbis,  the  Saadias, 
Gebirols,  Maimonides,  Spinozas,  Moses  Mendelssohns  and 
many,  many  others  whose  names  remained  in  obscurity,  but 
whose  activities  were  nevertheless  potent  factors  in  human  ad¬ 
vance.  Reader!  this  sad,  yet  illustrious  picture  of  the  Jewish, 
ill-fated  scholar  and  sage,  with  his  poverty,  his  ethical  heroism, 

‘cot?  nx-po  mn:n  Borachoth,  8  a. 

2Often  enough  to  be  repeated  in  our  generation  of  ecclesiastical  magnates- 


282  HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF*PENTATEUCH. 

his  struggles,  his  mentality,  his  abstemiousness  and  his  self-sac¬ 
rifice,  living  up  to  the  rule  (in  Aboth )  of:  “Study,  think,  live 
on  bread  and  water,  sleep  on  the  bare  ground,  and  subsist  on 
preparing,  working  and  thinking”1 — such  thrilling  delineations 
are  not  inventions  nor  exaggerations,  nor  even  rare  ideals.  No, 
Reader !  I  who  pen  these  lines,  knew  men  who  realized  that 
fully,  who  could  sit  for  this  photograph.  I  knew  well  especially 
one  man  who  for  many,  many  years  lived  on  bread  and  raw 
fruit,  drank  but  water,  slept  on  a  hard  couch,  and  his  only  rec¬ 
reation,  his  only  joy,  his  only  aim  in  existence  was  to  study, 
think,  and  do  good,  work  for  his  fellow-men,  for  human  ad¬ 
vance.  And  his  practical  reward,  for  a  whole  lifetime,  was 
misrepresentation,  belittling,  envy  and  slander  by  men  of  Gama¬ 
liel’s  type,  not  worthy  to  tie  his  shoestrings.  Still  he  perse¬ 
vered,  kept  on  in  his  toil  and  self-sacrifice,  finding  his  real 
unique  reward,  yea,  his  happiness,  in  his  own  conscience.  He 
might  have,  been  a  shining  example  of  perfect  human  happi¬ 
ness,  if  not  for  the  acute  pangs  of  seeing  the  sufferings  of  his 
family,  and  of — “Weltschmerz !”  Besides  this  case  of  intimate 
familiarity,  I  knew  several  others  of  whom  I  surmised  that  they 
were  copies  of  the  identical  and  same  Agadic  pattern :  Bodily 
martyrdom,  monastic  abstemiousness,  austere  purity  and  men¬ 
tal  superiority.  Such  ethical  models,  no  doubt,  are  an  honor 
to  humanity;  hut  it  is  no  honor  to  humanity  to  tolerate  such 
martyrdom  created  by  its  demagogues. 

At  any  rate,  poverty  united  to  wisdom  and  virtue  is  no  abso¬ 
lute  obstacle  either  to  great  achievements  or  even  to  true  happi¬ 
ness.  Work,  as  a  livelihood  for  the  body,  and  study  as  the 
proper  sphere  and  most  noble  habit  for  the  mind  of  superior 
men,  such  was  the  ideal  of  the  Rabbis.  The  Deity  himself  was 
by  them  imagined  as  the  great  World-Worker,  the  Demiurg,  and 
the  Supreme  Thinker ;  that  in  him,  both  became  one,  the  Divine 
thought  was  creation,  his  thinking  was  working  and  working,  be¬ 
atitude.  Rabba  said  to  Raphram:  “Tell  us  something  good,”  to 
which  the  latter  answered  (Berachoth,  8  a)  :  It  is  written  (Ps., 


‘rrnn  ix  ”n 


JEWISH  SCHOLARS. 


283 


87)  :  “God  loveth  the  gates  of  Zion  above  all  the  tents  of  Jacob,” 
—that  means  he  loves  the  halls  consecrated  to  the  higher  studies 
( Halacha ),  above  all  the  houses  of  prayer  and  of  learning.1 
Hence  said  R.  Hi  ah  in  the  name  of  Ula — ever  giving  the  name 
of  the  original  Teacher,  no  plagiarists  in  those  honest  times — 
“Since  the  day  that  the  Moriah  Temple  was  destroyed  God  cares, 
out  of  all  the  universe,  principally  for  the  four-yard-wide  room 
of  the  higher  studies”  (Halacha).  So  Abaja  said:  “Formerly  I 
used  to  study  at  home  and  pray  in  the  synagogue,  but  later  on,  I 
learned  that  since  the  downfall  of  the  Temple,  God  prefers,  as 
his  own,  the  four  yards  of  the  higher  studies.  So  I  pray  now 
where  I  study”  ...  So  R.  Ami  and  R.  Asi,  dwelling  in  Tibe¬ 
rias,  where  there  were  thirteen  synagogues,  prayed  nowhere  but 
between  the  two  pillars  of  the  hall  or  portico  where  they  studied. 

This  ingenious  saying  that  since  the  destruction  of  the  Tem¬ 
ple,  God  is  ever  present  in  the  study-room,  served  Maimonides 
as  the  theme  of  a  noble  chapter.  Interpreting  at  large  this,  at 
first,  strange  sounding  passage,  he  most  philosophically  and 
boldly  concludes  that  the  great  object  of  the  world,  the  most  im¬ 
portant  social  factor,  is — the  sage,  the  philosophical  student,  the 
thinker;  in  him  is  Deity  incarnated;  society’s  great  object  and 
scope  is — to  produce  great  thinkers ;  thinking  and  working  in 
the  highest  sense,  is  one  ;  thinking  and  living  on  a  crust  of  bread. 
Such  is  the  Rabbinic  ideal  of  a  superior  man  “in  whom  God  re¬ 
joices,”  closes  Maimonides  this  theme  in  his  Yad  Ila-liasaqah. 
It  is  the  identical  pattern  of  the  sage  of  Plato,  Zeno,  Cicero  and 
the  Hindu  Vedanta  philosophers.2  The  Hindu  Rislii,  the  Greek 
Sophos,  the  Roman  Sapiens,  and  the  Rabbinic  Hacham  repre¬ 
sent  one  and  the  same  ideal  concept  of  a  great  and  good  man. 

Charity  and  Maimonides  Continued. 

(Maimonides.  Yad  Zeraim ;  Treatise  on  Gifts  to  Poor,  VII.) 
“It  is  a  positive  commandment  to  give  alms  and  donations  to 
Jewish  poor,  according  to  our  capacity  .  .  .  Who  sees  a  poor 
man,  looks  away  and  gives  him  nothing,  has  transgressed  the 

’JVY — D'JVVO,  a  fine  pun,  untranslatable  into  English. 

2See  my  “Philosophy,  Qabbala  and  Vedanta”  on  that. 


284  HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF^PENTATEUCH. 

law,  as  written :  Thou  shalt  not  harden  thy  heart  and  not  close 
thy  hand  against  thy  needy  brother  ...  You  are  bidden  to 
give  him  according  to  his  needs  .  .  .  Even  if  he  was  once  ac¬ 
customed  to  luxuries  and  is  now  impoverished,  you  shall  assist 
him  according  to  his  habits.  Give  him  even  as  much  as  a  fifth 
of  your  income ;  a  tenth  is  fair,  less  is  avaricious.  One  shall 
feed  and  support  the  Gentile  poor  with  the  Jewish  ones,  for  the 
sake  of  good-will  to  all.” — (Ibid.,  IX.)  :  Every  city  inhabited  by 
Jews  shall  appoint  a  board  of  charities,  well-known  and  trust¬ 
worthy  men,  to  make  the  round  weekly  and  receive  from  every¬ 
one  what  may  be  fairly  expected  of  him.  That  money  is  to  be 
distributed  among  the  poor  sufficient  for  the  weekly  support. 
This  is  technically  termed  Qupa,  Money-Charity-box.  Another 
appointed  committee  on  charity  is  to  collect  of  the  people  daily 
eatables  and  clothing,  and  divide  that  every  evening  among  the 
poor.  This  is  termed  Timhui ,  meal  or  kitchen  charity.  All 
precaution  is  to  be  taken  in  those  transactions  that  nothing  goes 
to  waste  or  be  misapplied  ...  A  poor  man  who  offers  a  charity 
is  welcome  to  do  so,  but  he  cannot  be  taxed  for  that. 

“(Ibid.,  X.,)  :  We  are  bound  to  observe  the  commandment  of 
charity  (Zedaka)  more  than  any  other  affirmative  command¬ 
ment,  for  that  is  the  very  touch-stone  and  criterion  of  the  true 
seed  of  Abraham  .  .  .  The  genuine  faith  is  affirmed  by  nothing 
so  much  as  by  benevolence  ...  A  man  never  becomes  poorer 
by  doing  Zedal'a.  Whoever  is  sympathetic  gains  other  people’s 
sympathy.  Who  is  unsympathetic,  his  genealogical  family-rec¬ 
ord  is  suspicious  .  .  .  All  Israelites,  inclusive  of  their  sincere 
converts,  are  brothers,  as  written:  You  are  God’s  children  .  .  . 
To  whom  else  shall  the  Jewish  poor  look  up  to  for  assistance, 
surely  not  to  the  heathens,  their  persecutors  ?  Xo,  of  their 
Jewish  brethren  alone,  they  must  expect  aid!  Whoever  closes 
his  eyes  to  charity  is  Belial,  godless,  wicked,  cruel,  a  sinner1  .  .  . 
God  is  ever  near-by  listening  to  the  cry  of  the  needy  .  .  .  He 
who  offers  a  gift  with  an  ungracious  mien,  even  bo  it  a  thou¬ 
sand  gold  pieces,  has  forfeited  all  his  merit.  Benevolence  must 


hy-^a  ,yen  ’1T3N  ,XL3in 


CHARITY  AND  MAIMONIDES  CONTINUED. 


285 


be  accompanied  by  friendliness,  sincere  sympathy,  warm  en¬ 
couragement  !  If  the  poor  asks  alms,  and  you  have  nothing  to 
give,  offer  him  honest,  kindly  words  at  any  rate.  Do  not  ad¬ 
dress  him  harshly  in  a  lordly  manner  .  .  .  Woe  to  him  who 
grieves  the  needy  .  .  .  God  is  his  protector,  near  by  .  .  . 

“There  are  eight  degrees  of  benevolence  and  Zedaka.  The 
highest  and  noblest  is  to  encourage  and  help  up  one  in  distress, 
lending  him  money  and  goods,  or  going  into  partnership  with 
him,  or  procuring  him  work,  so  as  to  make  him  stand  on  his 
own  feet,  become  self-supporting  and  be  in  no  need  of  anyone. 
This  is  the  noblest  charity.  The  next  noble  is,  to  bestow  a  boon 
upon  the  poor  without  personally  seeing  and  knowing  the  recip¬ 
ient,  or  letting  him  know  who  the  donor  is.  Such  was  the  si¬ 
lent  chamber  in  the  Moriah  Temple,  where  liberal  persons  gave 
alms  secretly,  and  where  especially  respectable  poor  received 
private  gifts.  Of  course  this  method  is  to  be  used  only  then, 
when  fair  dealings  are  perfectly  secured.  The  next,  lower  char¬ 
ity  degree  is  that  the  donor  know  the  recipient,  but  that  the  re¬ 
cipient  know  not  the  donor.  So  the  great  sages  acted  who  se¬ 
cretly  went  to  the  home  of  the  bashful  needy,  furtively  threw 
in  their  donations  and  hastily  retired.  The  next  degree  is  to 
hand  the  charity  to  the  poor  without  letting  him  see  or  know 
the  person  of  the  giver,  so  as  to  spare  him  any  humiliation. 
The  next  is  to  give  before  being  requested.  The  next  is  to  give 
at  once  when  asked.  Next  to  give  less  than  is  fair,  but  with  a 
friendly  face.  The  last  and  lowest  charity  is  to  give  with  a 
constrained  and  forlorn  mien.  Leading  teachers  ever  gave 
alms  before  every  prayer.  Who  supports  his  grown  children 
in  order  to  give  them  the  leisure  and  means  for  a  better  educa¬ 
tion  and  a  better  start  in  the  world— this  is  noble  benevolence. 
Who  kindly  invites  the  poor  to  his  table  is  charitable. 

Ever  shall  a  man  rather  live  closely  and  sparingly  and  not 
intrude  upon  others.  So  said  our  sages :  Make  thy  Sabbath  a 
week-day  and  be  in  no  need  of  anyone.  Even  a  sage  and  an 
honorable  man,  but  poor,  let  bim  courageously  exercise  some 
trade,  even  an  indelicate  one,  but  not  apply  for  charity.  “Bet¬ 
ter  to  skin  a  dead  carcass  in  the  street  and  not  say :  ‘I  am  a  gen- 


286 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  TENTATEUCH. 


tleman,  a  great  scholar,  support  me’ !”  Among  our  great  sages 
there  were  wood-cutters,  drawers  of  water,  smiths,  coal-workers 
etc.,  but  they  never  asked  or  received  anything  of  any  man. 
Whoever  needs  not,  yet  acepts  alms,  will  not  die  before  he  truly 
needs  such.  To  him  applies :  “Accursed  is  the  man  who  relies 
on  man”  .  .  .  He  who  really  needs,  as  when  old  or  sick,  but  is 
proud  and  refuses  charity,  he  is  a  murderer  and  suicide;  his 
starvation  brings  him  but  sin.  But  he  who  constrains  himself, 
lives  closely  and  abstemiously  and  is  a  burden  to  no  one,  he  will 
soon  have  enough  to  support  others  also.  Of  him  it  is  said : 
“Blessed  is  the  man  who  relieth  on  God”  .  .  .  Each  of  these 
sentences  is  Talmudical  doctrine  and  is  proven  by  most  suitable, 
appropriate,  scriptural  verses.  The  whole  system  with  its  un¬ 
derlying  motives  is  admirable,  unique  in  the  history  of  social 
government,  and  worthy  of  being  adopted  by  all  civilized  na¬ 
tions,  as  a  pattern  of  wisdom,  goodness  and  altruism. 

Criticism  and  Conclusion. 

Let  me  not  be  misunderstood.  Sympathy  with  the  suffering, 
desire  to  assist  them,  charity  and  benevolence  for  the  needy,  is 
not  specifically  a  Jewish  virtue;  it  is  humane,  deeply  settled  in 
our  hearts,  a  trait  of  our  human  nature.  I  shall  admit  even 
more.  It  is  a  feature,  an  innate  instinct,  perhaps,  of  all  ani¬ 
mated  nature.  The  brute  has  that  instinctive  love  for  its  off¬ 
spring,  and,  by  extension,  also,  for  its  kind.  Maybe  the  lion  and 
tiger  lacerate  and  devour  to  appease  their  hunger  or  their  an¬ 
ger,  when  provoked,  and  that  means  that  the  innate  pity  is  si¬ 
lenced  and  overcome  by  the  stronger  instinct  of  self-preserva¬ 
tion.  Thus  pity  and  sympathy  is  a  corollary  of  all  animal  being 
and  life.  That  pity  rises  to  active  benevolence  and  aid  in  man 
of  all  races  and  peoples.  Among  all  civilized  nations  we  find 
great  display  of  acts  of  goodness  and  mercy  from  more  or  less 
elevated  motives.  But  the  characteristic  of  the  Biblical  sym¬ 
pathy  and  charity  is  that  there  it  is  legalized  and  constituted  a 
civil  duty  connected  with,  and  lying  at,  the  very  base  of  prop¬ 
erty.  A  man’s  house,  field  or  even  movables  and  fruits  are  his, 
no  Utopian  communism!  but  on  specified  conditions;  he  is 


CRITICISM  AND  CONCLUSION. 


287 


bound  to  give  part  of  that  to  the  poor,  as  a  duty,  plainly  implied 
in:  “Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself,”  assumed  to  be 
promulgated  simultaneously  with  the  very  beginning  of  prop¬ 
erty,  at  the  start  of  the  nation  after  the  reoccupation  of  the  an¬ 
cestral  Canaan  by  Joshua  and  the  Israelites.  Here  is  sympathy 
and  beneficence  not  merely  an  alms-giving,  the  lowest  grade  of 
charity,  but  they  lie  at  the  root  of  property,  and  are  its  condition 
sine  quae  non.  All  civilized  nations  gave  alms  in  money,  corn, 
banquets,  out  of  humane  fellow-feeling  or  politics  or  ostenta¬ 
tion.  Such  were  the  distributions  enacted  by  the  Roman,  Per¬ 
sian  and  Egyptian  grandees.  Judaea  alone  spent  as  a  duty,  a 
duty  assisting,  not  degrading,  poverty. 

This  grand  system  of  benevolence  did  not  perish  with  the 
loss  of  the  free  Jewish  Commonwealth.  It  outlived  it  long  after, 
and  was  justly  declared  by  its  leaders  as  the  potent  sub¬ 
stitute  for  the  altar  destroyed  by  Titus.  It  became  a  perma¬ 
nent  feature  of  Jewry  in  the  dispersion.  Giving  alms  and  or¬ 
ganizing  lasting  benevolence,  Gemilotli  Hassodim,  lending 
money  to  struggling  traders,  redeeming  captives,  sheltering  the 
homeless,  caring  for  the  sick,  rearing  and  educating  the  orphans, 
endowing  and  marrying  poor  girls,  burying  the  dead  and  sup¬ 
porting  the  poor,  was  a  leading  feature  of  Jewish  communities 
during  the  Middle  Ages.  In  the  Ghetto  it  is  practiced  now, 
as  ever,  modestly,  and  by  well-to-do  modern  Israel,  often,  on  a 
grand  scale,  as  exhibited  in  many  Jewish  communities  of  Eu¬ 
rope  and  America. 

And  this  charity  system  did  not  stop  with  the  bounds  of  the 
Jewish  camp.  It  transgressed  its  boundaries  to  all  the  corners 
of  the  world.  Buddhism  caught  up  the  spark  and,  one-sided 
and  exaggerating,  declared  pity,  charity  and  benevolence  not 
only  a  part,  a  salient  part,  but  the  very  whole  of  religion. 
When,  as  above  mentioned,  a  Rabbi  emphatically  and  boldly 
opined :  “Great  is  charity,  for  it  outweighs  all  the  other  com¬ 
mandments,”  that  sounds  almost  as  a  ring  and  echo  from  Bud¬ 
dha  Gautama’s  camp-meetings.  But  no  less  rationally  and  wise¬ 
ly  than  he,  did  the  teachers  of  Christianity  and  of  Islam  dili¬ 
gently  preach,  exalt  and  inculcate  the  duty  of  benevolent  and 


288 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


charitable  deeds,  of  mercy,  love  and  forgiveness.  These  teach¬ 
ers,  of  Nazareth  and  Tarsus,  of  Mecca  and  Medinah,  etc.  caught 
up  their  spark  of  enthusiasm,  without  any  contradiction,  from 
the  Rabbis  and  the  Prophets.  They  loudly  proclaimed  them¬ 
selves  as  their  disciples  and  their  followers.  Thrilling  to  the 
utmost  are  the  addresses  of  Jesus,  Paul,  Mohammed,  their  disci¬ 
ples,  on  mercy,  charity,  reconciliation,  patience,  humility,  self- 
sacrifice,  sympathy  and  altruism;  sometimes  going  to  exaggera¬ 
tion,  overlooking  work,  saving,  providing  and  prudence.  They  re¬ 
hearsed  and  copied  from  prophetic  harangues  and  agadic  homi¬ 
lies.  With  them  charity  was  not  all,  as  with  Buddha,  but  a  big 
part  of  religion.  All  these  efforts  combined  undoubtedly  helped 
poor  mankind  a  little.  Still  that  degenerated  into  begging  and 
common  almsgiving.  It  degrades  the  poor,  puffs  up  the  rich  and 
chiefly,  nurtures  pauperism  and  moral  enslavement  of  the  alms- 
takers. 

Its  remedy,  the  panacea,  is  the  return  to  the  original,  pure, 
Mosaic  suggestion :  Every  man  is  to  be  born  to  an  entail,  a 
family  acre,  and  to  receive  an  education,  viz,  the  arms  of  self- 
defense  in  the  battle  for  existence;  whilst  artificial  privileges 
and,  on  the  other  hand,  social  ostracism  be  muzzled.  Do  justice 
to  everyone,  and  no  one  will  need  charity. 

With  the  Bible  the  Synagogue  indeed  entailed  upon  the  church 
its  grand,  elaborate  system  of  charity  and  benefactions.  But  in 
both,  unfortunately,  in  the  Synagogue  and  Church,  the  real  Mo¬ 
saic  sociology,  solidarity,  and  the  real  Mosaic  benevolence  were 
overlooked  and  omitted.  The  reason  is,  because  they  were  an  in¬ 
tegral  part  of  the  Bible  democracy  and  its  free  society.  Indeed, 
could  the  church  recommend  the  original,  Mosaic  free  man  and 
woman,  the  free  state,  free  citizen,  equal  distribution  of  wealth, 
an  inalienable  family  acre  etc.  ?  Could  it  do  so  in  the  empire 
of  the  Caesars  and  patricians,  or  of  the  Teutonic,  conquering 
hordes,  all  resting  upon  mere  force,  the  victorious  sword,  upon 
overreaching  and  caste-privilege  ?  Could  it  do  so  when  the  chief¬ 
tain  claimed  land  and  goods,  all,  and  man  was  nothing;  where 
even  the  barons  had  just  what  the  suzerain  allowed  them  ?  There 
the  Mosaic  democracy  was  out  of  the  question.  The  poor,  even 


CRITICISM  AND  CONCLUSION. 


289 


when  members  and  clansmen  of  the  dominant  race,  were  but 
menials,  ever  at  the  will  and  mercy  of  the  liege-lord.  So  the 
Mosaic  benevolence,  rooting  in  freedom,  was  impossible,  out  of 
the  question.  The  poor,  the  sick,  the  orphan,  were  to  be  as¬ 
sisted  as  an  atoning  alms,  as  a  sacrifice  of  expiation  for  the 
lordly  sins,  not  in  order  to  uplift  the  poor,  render  them  inde¬ 
pendent  and  obviate  both  plutocracy  and  pauperism.  Later 
even,  when  the  dominant  church  claimed,  as  the  Vicar  of  Christ 
and  of  Caesar,  universal  dominion,  earth  and  ocean,  the  world 
and  its  riches,  then  she  built  the  grandest  charitable  institutions, 
advanced  Christian  authority  and  made  a  soft  cushion  for  the 
lazy,  the  vicious  and  begging  ones.  But  this  was  not  the  object 
of  Biblical  benevolence,  which  aimed  at  uplifting,  rendering  in¬ 
dependent,  creating  manly  citizens,  a  universal  democracy,  with¬ 
out  lord,  slave  or  pauper. 

The  mediaeval  synagogue  had  not  the  means,  social,  pecuniary 
and  political,  in  the  Mosaic  sense,  to  uplift  and  substantially 
assist  the  needy,  so  as  to  be  above  want.  But  the  Church, 
though  wealthy,  had  her  political  reasons  not  to  act  on  Biblical 
principles.  The  Church  was  hampered  by  feudalism.  She  was 
allied  to  king  and  baron.  So  charity  became  almsgiving  on  a 
grand  scale,  opening  of  hospitals,  poor-houses,  orphanages,  asy¬ 
lums  etc.  It  disposed  of  huge  wealth,  such  as  the  Synagogue 
never  could  boast  of.  It  used  it  grandly  and  nobly,  but  also  not 
seldom,  for  selfish,  domineering  purposes,  not  always  for  the 
people’s  good.  The  monasteries  and  bishoprics  became  veritable 
asylums,  sheltering  armies  of  monks,  nuns,  beggars  and  paupers. 
Degeneracy  went  on  as  usually.  Often  they  became  also  places 
of  refuge  for  criminals  and  the  scum  of  society.  Crime  and  lazi¬ 
ness  found  there  toleration,  protection  and  food.  Even  the 
heavenly  gates  were  thrown  open  to  them.  Pope  and  emperor, 
bishop  and  prince,  vied  with  each  other  to  benefit  the  beggars, 
as  a  means  of  expiating  their  own  sins.  The  Emperor  and  the 
Pope  had  their  days  of  washing  the  feet  of  such  beggar-saints. 
It  was  a  whitewash  for  their  conscience.  To  be  a  beggar  was  a 
title  to  paradise.  Even  to  our  time,  on  a  certain  day  the  prince 
washes  the  feet  of  a  few  beggars,  as  a  remnant  of  human  equal- 


290 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


ity ;  still  it  does  not  improve  the  poor  man  who  is  the  recipient 
of  the  honor.  It  is  a  ceremony,  no  more.  Thus,  as  a  clear  re¬ 
sult  of  false  charity,  pauperism,  laziness  and  vice  were  nurtured 
in  those  grand  mediaeval  institutions,  devouring  half  the  wealth 
of  Europe.  Thus  the  splendid  Christian  charity  was  often 
wrecked  by  misunderstanding  and  misapplication.  Thus  the 
original,  far-reaching,  Biblical  benevolence  was  not  carried  out 
by  either  Synagogue  or  Church.  The  Ghetto,  the  imprisoned, 
poor  Synagogue  and  the  dominant  and  wealthy  Church,  both, 
neglected  the  inner  scope  and  purpose  of  the  Mosaic  Zedaka, 
and  turned  it  to  almsgiving  and  an  eleemosynary  hospital,  do¬ 
ing  some  good,  but  not  half  the  good  it  should  and  could  do. 
Zedaka  is  ever  constructed  with  mishpat,  meaning  kindly  right¬ 
eousness,  justice  united  with  pity  and  mercy,1  right  and  love 
made  one.  In  the  great  majority  of  cases,  the  poor  have  a 
moral  right  to  be  assisted  by  society,  for  it  is  the  social  privi¬ 
leges  of  the  classes  and  the  social  ostracism  of  the  masses  that 
have  reduced  the  latter  to  want.  The  Ghetto-Synagogue  and  the 
palace-Church  overlooked  that,  and  made  charity  an  institution 
for  the  paupers,  the  vicious,  and  at  most  for  the  victims  of  our 
social  wrongs  and  distempers.  The  thinkers  and  philanthropists 
of  this  past  nineteenth  century  discovered  that.  It  is  a  faint 
Biblical  recollection,  as  democracy,  freedom,  equality,  monog¬ 
amy  ;  so  is  true  charity.  We  must  not  nurture  or  idealize  or 
beatify  poverty,  but  extirpate  it,  root  and  stem,  by  stopping  its 
baneful  sources:  Social  wrong,  legal  injustice,  privilege,  igno¬ 
rance.  We  must  do  justice  to  all,  open  competition  to  all,  equal¬ 
ize  chances  for  all.  We  must  muzzle  unfair  competition  and 
plutocracy.  And  this  is  the  Mosaic  democracy,  this  is  its  scope, 
object  and  natural  drift.  A  free  acre  to  each  and  privilege  to 
none,  this  covers  all  the  Biblical  charity.  Do  justice,  and  none 
will  need  alms !  is  the  refrain. 

Ho  doubt,  here  is  a  legislation  of  justice  and  charity,  benevo¬ 
lence  and  solidarity,  unequaled  in  all  antiquity  and,  in  many 
respects,  not  reached  in  the  present  time,  a  pattern  for  the  future. 

'npTYI  DSC’O:  very  often  in  this  construction:  Is.,  33.5-56;  Jer.,  8.23; 
22.3;  Ezek.,  18.5. 


CRITICISM  AND  CONCLUSION. 


291 


It  is  odious  to  make  comparisons ;  it  is  unfair  to  seek  for  dis¬ 
criminating  parallels ;  it  is  idle  and  mean  belittling  to  talk  of 
copying,  plagiarism  and  imitation  by  the  Mosaic  Lawgiver  of 
the  Laws  of  Hammurabi,  or  other  codes  of  Babylonia,  Rome  or 
Egypt.  These  latter  codes  may  and  do  contain  many  excellent 
elements  and  tenets  of  right  and  justice,  of  benevolence  and  even 
of  religion.  As  such  they  may  have  justly  found  their  echo  in 
the  Mosaic  Code,  too.  We  do  not  pretend  that  before  Sinai,  civ¬ 
ilized  mankind  had  no  notion  of  right  and  truth,  even  of  holi¬ 
ness  and  Deity.  But  how  and  of  what  quality  and  kind  ?  But 
chiefly  nowhere  do  we  find  such  laws  united  into  one  compact, 
homogeneous  code,  as  an  organic  law  solemnly  and  publicly  de¬ 
livered,  and  for  thousands  of  years  universally  recognized  as 
such,  as  the  religious,  social  and  moral  constitution  of  the  State, 
as  the  supreme  rule  of  conduct  for  the  individual  and  the  na¬ 
tion;  unanimously  and  loudly  proclaimed  as  the  law  of  the 
one  Supreme  God,  dictating  it  to  man,  to  Israel,  yea,  in  re¬ 
serve,  for  mankind !  As  a  whole,  a  social  and  ethical  system,  a 
fundamental  law  for  practice,  enacted  by  the  Omnipotent, 
as  such  the  Mosaic  Law  is  unique ;  it  is  wholly  unsectarian, 
universal  and  entirely  original,  without  a  parallel  in  human  his¬ 
tory,  and  its  charity  and  benevolence  law  is  a  worthy  part  there¬ 
of.  Just  as  the  Pentateuch  is  very  sparing  in  fasting,  praying 
and  mere  observances,  in  comparison  with  other  creeds,  but  is 
very  positive  and  urgent  in  forbidding  wrong  acts,  beliefs,  su¬ 
perstition  and  hypocrisy,  even  so  it  is  concerning  social  duties, 
especially  human  solidarity.  It  does  not  command  so  much 
to  give  gifts  and  alms,  as  to  do  right,  and  chiefly  to  do  no 
wrong,  to  let  every  one  have  his  due,  have  his  chance.  Indeed, 
to  subscribe  to  churches,  hospitals,  monuments,  charities  and 
soup-kitchens,  is  not  by  far  the  true  benevolence.  That,  is  often 
compatible  with  ostentation  and  self-advertisement,  a  cloak  for 
accaparating  and  over-reaching,  for  open  oppression,  or  clandes¬ 
tine  exploiting,  cornering  the  market  and  defrauding  on  a 
grand  scale.  But,  not  to  abuse  power,  restrain  the  passions,  sym¬ 
pathize  with  and  allow  his  chance  to  the  poor,  weak,  helpless 
and  homeless ;  not  to  take  advantage  of  the  stranger,  the  simple 


292 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


and  the  debtor,  not  to  abuse  tbe  favorable  opportunity,  but  to  be 
just  misericordius  and  modest  towards  all — that  is  tbe  true  re¬ 
ligion,  tbe  rare  charity,  tbe  essentially  Mosaic  sympathy  and 
benevolence,  and  that  has  found  its  best  and  clearest  expression 
in  tbe  Bible,  in  Moses  and  tbe  Prophets. 

LOVE  IH  MOSAISM  AHD  ELSEWHERE. 

We  have  introduced  this  treatise  with  tbe  remark  that  centu¬ 
ries  ago  tbe  claim  used  to  be  that  the  Mosaic  Law  is  rigid, 
justice  punishing  wrong,  the  Lex  Talionis,  and  that  Chris¬ 
tianity  stands  for  tbe  higher  doctrine  of  love ;  whilst  now  reli¬ 
gious  innovators,  agnostics  and  sceptics  assume  another  attitude 
towards  tbe  Bible.  They  claim  that  no  positive  religion,  that 
neither  tbe  Old  nor  the  Hew  Testament  have  the  “Perfect  Eth¬ 
ics,”  that  a  “new  social  code  must  be  introduced,  with  a  religion, 
new  in  ideas  and  in  forms.” 

We  cannot  here  consider  this  new  “Perfect  Ethics”  contem¬ 
plated  by  the  innovators,  since  they  are  still  a  blank,  vague  shad¬ 
ows  of  doctrines  not  promulgated  from  the  new  Sinai.  But  we 
have  shown  and  emphasized  in  these  pages  that  the  Mosaic  Eth¬ 
ics,  its  charity,  sympathy,  solidarity,  are  fully  sufficient  for 
human  society  as  it  is.  We  have  proved  that  the  exaggerated 
Love-principle  of  the  Hew  Testament  is  of  sickly  birth,  that  it 
has  never  matured  into  practice.  It  may  have  produced  a  few 
great  humane  exemplars,  but  that  the  masses  have  not  profited 
by  it,  because  it  is  too  high-strained  and  out  of  human  reach. 
We  have  seen  that  exaggerated  love-principle  to  be  of  Brah- 
manic,  Buddhistic  or  Osiric  origin ;  that  philosophy  assuming 
that  life  is  a  failure,  all  existence  a  misfortune,  the  world  a  con¬ 
stant  deterioration  from,  and  a  blunder  of,  the  Deity ;  that  na¬ 
ture  is  evil ;  hence  are  activity,  virtue,  thinking,  poetry,  art,  pa¬ 
triotism,  glory,  charity,  not  worth  caring  for.  What,  then,  shall 
a  pious  Hindu  or  Egyptian  aspire  at?  At  self-denial  and  resig¬ 
nation,  at  beatitude  and  absorption  in  the  Deity,  or  non-exist¬ 
ence?1  How  can  man  obtain  and  reach  that?  Buddhism  as- 

1  Absorption  in  the  Deity  is  the  last  word  and  hope  of  Brahrainism  and 
Osirisism  ;  they  are  diverse  in  myth,  but  identical  in  essence;  the  pious 
becomes  one  with  Brahma  or  Osiris ;  Nirwana  ! 


LOVE  IN  MOSAISM  AND  ELSEWHEliE. 


293 


sumes  emphatically :  By  suicide,  killing  and  obliterating  all  con¬ 
sciousness,  feeling  and  thinking,  extinguishing  all  remembrance 
of  parent,  wife  and  child,  of  body  and  soul,  hope  or  fear,  love 
and  hate ;  the  only  true  happiness  is — not  to  be  !  Whilst  Brah¬ 
manism  accepts  the  premises,  still  winds  up  otherwise :  Drop 
body,  passions  and  senses,  contemplate  but  the  deity,  sink  into 
a  trance,  an  ecstasy  and  thus  be  beatified ;  thy  mind  resumed  in 
the  God-head  will  no  more  transmigrate  and  pilgrimage  on 
earth;  that  is  termed:  Nirwana !  This  is  the  object,  hope  and 
aspiration  of  all  piety,  all  human  effort,  blow  this  Nirwana 
doctrine  was  renovated  by  Greek  Neo-Platonism,  Jewish  Qab- 
bala,  yea,  it  is  the  later  Osiris  doctrine,  too. 

And  this  is  also  the  “Love-principle”  claimed  to  be  above  the 
Biblical  justice  and  benevolence:  “Care  not  for  work,  family, 
property,  world,  that  is  all  indifferent.  Aspire  at  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  and  its  beatitdue !” — Otherwise  is  the  Mosaic  scheme, 
that  teaches :  “God  created  all.”  “God  saw  that  all  was  good.” — - 
“God  blessed  his  work  and  bade  man  to  labor,  provide,  domi¬ 
nate  and  multiply  in  the  land;”  .  .  .  “Work  in  the  sweat  of 
thy  brow  and  enjoy  as  the  lord  of  the  earth.”— That  is  to  the 
point,  realistic ;  and  even  so  realistic  are  its  ethics :  “Celebrate 
a  universal  rest-day ;  honor  thy  parents,  respect  human  life, 
honor,  property,  matrimony;  take  care  of  thy  word  and  of  thy 
feelings ;  love  thy  fellow-man.- — Spare  thy  enemy,  the  stranger, 
even  the  brute.  Take  the  world  as  it  is,  make  the  best  of  it  by  its 
proper  use.  No  constant  self-sacrifice,  no  impossible  virtues ; 
self-preservation  is  thy  first  care ;  race-preservation  is  thy  next 
task ;  do  thy  duty,  insist  upon  thy  right,  live  and  let  live ;  feel 
with  thy  neighbor,  condone  with  thy  enemy ;  have  sympathy 
with  the  weak,  the  poor,  the  slave,  the  brute ;  realize  the  solidar¬ 
ity  of  all  men,  yea,  of  all  rational  beings,  and  thus  live  up  to : 
“Holy  shall  you  be,  for  I,  God,  am  holy.” — This  is  the  Love, 
the  law,  the  justice,  the  right,  the  duty,  the  solidarity,  sympa¬ 
thy,  humanity,  universality,  charity  and  benevolence  taught  by 
Mosaism.  They  are  branches  and  rays  of  one  light.  As  the  an¬ 
cient  temple  Menorah  (chandelier),  they  are  all  made  of  one 
gold-bar,  one  piece,  making  up  the  realistic  love-and-j  ustice-doc- 


294 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


trine  of  the  Thora,  taught  to  the  world  and  to  men  as  they  prac¬ 
tically  are.  This  Biblical  love  is  permeated  with  justice  and 
reason,  and  this  Biblical  justice  is  pervaded  with  love,  the  differ¬ 
ent  aspects  of  one  and  the  same  thing ;  egoism  and  altruism  ra¬ 
tionally  combined. 

Let  us  be  more  explicit.  Love  as  a  virtue,  a  leading  virtue, 
not  a  passion  and  weakness,  must  be  identified  with  justice  and 
squared  with  reason.  Whilst  love  without  justice  and  without 
reason,  is  but  a  covered  vice.  Love,  pardoning  the  wrong-doer,  is 
flagrantly  unjust  to  the  wrong-sufferer,  it  is  to  take  from  the  hon¬ 
est  his  due  and  waste  it  unduly  upon  the  dishonest ;  it  is  encour¬ 
aging  the  guilty  and  discouraging  the  innocent.  Only  when 
love  is  combined  with  reason  and  balanced  by  justice,  only  then 
is  it  a  virtue,  and  may  be  the  virtue.  The  Pentateuch  ascribes 
this  love,  in  the  highest  degree,  to  the  Deity  (II  M.,  34-6)  : 
“Ihvh,  God,  loving  and  merciful,  long-suffering,  beneficent  and 
truthful  .  .  .  bearing  with  sin  and  iniquity,  still  not  allowing 
them  to  go  on  unpunished  .  .  .  remembering  the  good  to  thou¬ 
sands  of  generations  .  .  .  and  entailing  the  fathers’  wrongs 
upon  their  offspring,  to  the  third  and  fourth  generation.”  Here 
we  see  God  is  Love,  but  not  sentimentality,  love  identified  with 
justice  and  reason.  All  three  are  one  in  him,  as  the  sun-ray  is 
the  unification  of  all  the  colors.  How,  heathendom  broke  this 
perfect  sun-ray  by  its  imperfect  human  prism ;  it  saw  the  Deity 
in  the  universe  only  as  reflected  there  by  its  divine  attributes, 
and  it  imagined  as  many  deities  as  divine  attributes  and  forces 
that  exist  in  the  world ;  it  splintered  the  one  white  ray  into 
many-shaded  colors;  it  represented  each  divine  attribute,  sepa¬ 
rately,  by  its  own  fictitious  genius.  The  Babylonian  and  Ca- 
naanitish  supreme  god,  Baal,  was  justice;  Ea  was  love  and 
mercy,  and  so  on,  each  force  and  virtue  was  represented  by  its 
own  imagined  genius.  Thus  in  polytheism  the  supreme  god 
was  justice  without  mercy  and  sympathy.  George  Smith,  in  his 
rendition  of  the  cuneiform  story  of  the  Deluge  in  Babylonia, 
introduces  Baal  as  the  embodiment  of  justice,  the  Lex  Talionis, 
requiring  the  total  destruction  of  the  sinful  human  race;  whilst 


LOVE  IN  MOSAISM  AND  ELSEWHEliE. 


295 


god  Ea  intercedes  in  behalf  of  the  Babylonian  Noah,  the1  leader 
of  the  Ark,  and  favors  the  conservation  of  the  race.  So  is  god 
Mardukh,  the  later,  other  name  of  the  Babylonian  Baal,  the  god 
of  rigid  justice.2  Now  Christianity  took  the  very  opposite  side 
of  that  view.  Whilst  to  the  heathen,  God  was  force  and  severe 
justice,  Christianity  conceived  the  Messianic  part  of  God  as 
mere  Love,  Love  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  where  oppressed  in¬ 
nocence  and  insolent,  triumphant  wrong  will  be  impossible. 
Hence  the  “coat  and  cloak,”  the  “right  and  left  cheek,”  in¬ 
stances.  The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  dominated  by  the  God  of  Love 
as  Osiris  is  in  the  realms  of  the  future  life  in  Egyptian  religion. 
Strict  justice,  lex  talionis  and  punishment  are  there  not  neces¬ 
sary.  Quite  otherwise  is  Mosaism :  It  did  not  claim  to  legislate 
for  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  but  for  this  terrestrial  globe,  far 
from  being  a  heaven,  but  passably  bearable  if  wisely  taken,  and 
for  real  man,  adapted  to  the  real  world.  God  is  the  harmonious 
unit  of  justice  and  love  and  reason;  he  is  the  Supreme  Reason 
permeated  with  absolute  justice  and  love,  all  three  and  infinitely 
more  attributes  are  identified  in  him,  as  all  colors  are  in  the 
one  sunlight.  Still  for  the  human  eye,  God  is  justice  and  love, 
prominently  and  saliently,  and  these  two  phases  are  Biblically 
termed :  Elohim  and  Ihvh.  Such  they  are  designated  by  our 
poetic,  Agadie  philosophers,  the  one  God  has  many  attributes, 
among  which  are  chiefly  justice  and  love,  Midath  ha-din  and 
Midath  ha-rachmim;  in  him  are  reason,  justice  and  love,  etc., 
perfectly  united,  fused  and  identified. 

Thus,  while  the  heathen  god  is  cold-steel-j ustice,  Talion,  piti¬ 
less,  inexorable;  every  mistake,  sin  and  rebellion,  to  have  its 
logical  consequence,  forever  and  ever ;  whilst  the  Paulinian  God 
of  Love,  not  of  justice,  is  father,  not  judge,  all  mercy,  forgive¬ 
ness  and  self-sacrifice,  ascending  the  cross  to  expiate  for  human 
sin;  he  is  God  of  Love,  because  by  right,  all  men  should  go  to 
perdition,  just  as  the  Babylonian  Baal  condemns  all  mankind  to 
destruction — in  place  thereof  Mosaism  teaches  “God  is  long- 

■Parnapishtim  or  Xissutros. 

2See  H.  Winkler,  “Laws  of  Hammurabi,”  page  1;  Mardukh  Gott  des 
Rechtes. 


296 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


suffering,  merciful  and  loving,  still  united  to  justice  and  rea¬ 
son,  so  that  sin  must  he  expiated,  even  to  the  third  and  fourth 
generation.”  Even  so  we  do  really,  practically,  verify  it  in  daily 
life  and  in  history;  sin  and  wrong  have  their  necessary  conse¬ 
quences,  their  baneful  results,  even  to  the  children  and  children’s 
children.  They  must  be  stopped  and  destroyed  by  man’s  effort, 
or  they  will  destroy  man  and  his  race.  At  any  rate,  crime  and 
error  have  their  consequences  and  cannot  he  blown  away.  No, 
they  must  be  and  are  eliminated,  the  vices  or  the  vicious  must 
go.  And  just  this  is  the  sense  of  II  M.,  34.6-7,  quoted  above: 
“Ihvh,  God  of  mercy,  long-suffering,  .  .  .  still  wrong  must  be 
atoned,  punished  it  must  be.” 

Mosaic  Ethics  ;  Herbert  Spencer  and  Agnostics. 

Thus  the  Mosaic  doctrine  reunites  these  elsewhere  scattered 
divine  attributes,  justice  and  love;  in  God  is  justice  tempered 
with  love;  love  is  pervaded  by  justice  and  both  are  upheld  by 
reason ;  they  interfuse  each  other,  as  air  and  light  and  electric¬ 
ity;  they  are  really  one,  though  apparently  split  and  separated 
by  our  human  analysis,  as  the  prism  breaks  the  sun-ray  into  dif¬ 
ferent  colors.  Hence  is  the  Mosaic  Law  no  mere  law  of  re¬ 
venge,  but  justice  permeated  with  true  love,  love  looking  both 
ways,  not  one-sided.  Even  so  is  the  Mosaic  humanity  and  char¬ 
ity  pervaded  with  justice,  truth,  love  and  reason. 

Far  less  tenable  than  the  doctrines  of  Babylonia  and  Nazareth 
is  the  agnostic  aspiration  at  creating  a  “Perfect  Ethics,”  without 
religion  and  the  God-belief.  Herbert  Spencer1  made  an  attempt 
at  loosening  and  severing  morality  and  ethics  from  religion, 
still  not  without  the  God-idea.  That  behind  this  visible  uni¬ 
verse  there  is  an  invisible  Power  sustaining  and  inspiring  it,  is 
to  him  self-evident.  But  he  tried  to  outline  a  system  of  moral¬ 
ity  not  connected  with  any  special  positive  creed,  without  cere¬ 
monialism,  dogmas  and  supernaturalism — and  even  there  he 
wisely  advised  caution,  “since  it  is  easier  to  demolish  and  de- 
stroy  than  to  build  up.”  But  as  to  our  latter-day  agnostic,  re¬ 
ligion-makers,  who  claimed  for  “the  right  of  secession  from  the 


In  his  Data  of  Ethics. 


MOSAIC  ETHICS  ;  HERBERT  SPENCER  AND  AGNOSTICS. 


297 


present  religions  and  the  duty  of  creating  one  of  their  own, 
with  “Perfect  Ethics,”1  since  those  of  Christ  and  the  Prophets 
are  not  satisfactory — here  I  am  at  a  loss  whereto  agnostics 
are  steering  .  .  .  Neither  their  new  “religion”  nor  their  new 
“Perfect  Ethics”  have  been  as  yet  revealed  to  the  world.  I  am 
afraid  they  have  not  been  revealed  even  to  themselves;  they  are 
yet  a  blank,  a  Utopia.  It  is  easy  to  pull  down  a  palace,  but 
very  hard  to  erect  one.  When  they  will  try  their  forces  at  that, 
they  will  find  out,  what  Herbert  Spencer  has  experimented  and 
honestly  acknowledged,  that  it  is  unwise  to  demolish  a  house 
before  we  are  sure  that  we  have  constructed  a  better  one;  and 
that  as  long  as  we  have  no  better  new  one,  let  us  thankfully  oc¬ 
cupy  the  old  one,  and  not  be  left  a  la  belle  etoile.  Hence  the 
“Perfect  Ethics”  and  the  agnostic  “religion,”  I  am  afraid,  are 
but  castles  in  the  air.  Consider !  Agnosticism  desires  higher 
ethics,  self-sacrifice,  perfection,  holiness  in  man,  and  still  it 
teaches :  Man  is  a  monkey,  the  universe  soulless,  a  machine  with¬ 
out  a  guide;  man  without  spirit  or  reason  steering  to¬ 
wards — nothing!  Upon  what  will  scepticism  build  then  its 
Perfect  Ethics  ?  Upon  what  erect  their  new  religion,  without 
postulating  a  Supreme  Providence,  God  as  source  of  love,  truth, 
justice  and  reason?  What  motive  for  virtue  and  wisdom? 
Whence  obtain  the  energy  to  strive  after  such?  Our  agnostics 
put  up  a  high  ideal  of  man,  virtue,  world,  worth,  duty,  educa¬ 
tion,  holiness — even  confession !  all  working  for  Perfect  Ethics, 
altruism,  love  and  charity,  even  severer  than  the  Biblical  ones, 
and  still  without  God,  without  a  motive  power  ?  Ethical  Culture 
claims  to  find  that  motive  in  man’s  conscience,  but  how  can  one 
appeal  to  the  conscience  of  a  monkey,  a  machine,  a  creature  with¬ 
out  spirit  or  reason  or  soul  ?  Herbert  Spencer  proposes  as  mo¬ 
tive,  true  and  wise  self-interest — but  the  agnostics  apparently 
scout  that!  What  then  else?  From  imiate  instincts  and  postu¬ 
lated  reason  they  rise  and  aspire  to  lofty  ideals,  to  pure  love  and 
Perfect  Ethics,  to  sanctification,  self-sacrifice  and  perfection ; 
and  nevertheless  they  decline  to  postulate  God  as  the  motive  and 

'“The  Right  of  Secession  from  Religion,”  New  York,  1903,  “Ethical  Cul¬ 
ture  Society.” 


298 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


source  of  perfection  and  holiness !  Why  is  such  a  postulatum 
unreasonable  ?  Gebirol,  Maimonides,  Kant  did  not  think  so,  and 
Herbert  Spencer  neither !  If  there  is  no  such  a  Source  of  Holi¬ 
ness  and  Perfection,  whence  could  man  obtain  it?  From  what 
motive  and  with  what  object?  If  the  creator  is  not  holy,  how 
shall  the  creature  be  ?  Whence  shall  it  come  and  what  for  ? 
And  since  Ethical  Culture  aspires  at  such  ideals,  why  not  grasp 
at  that  anchor  of  salvation,  postulate  God  and  accept  the  Supreme 
Ideal  as  the  reality  and  base  to  those  lofty,  inborn  aspirations  ? 
Without  God  and  sold  our  endeavors  are  futile;  without  the 
God-belief,  materialism  alone  remains ;  and  “Perfect  Ethics,” 
even  higher  education  etc.  float  in  the  air.  Hence  agnostic, 
“Perfect  Ethics,”  I  am  afraid,  are  a  Fata  Morgana,  a  will-o’-the- 
wisp,  a  castle  in  the  air,  and  can  only  lead  into  Nihilism:  “Let 
us  eat  and  drink,  for  tomorrow  we  die !”  You  remember  that 
vainglorious  Greek  who  fired  the  Temple  of  Ephesus  in  order  to 
become  famous.  That  may  be  the  glory  agnosticism  will  reap. 
Let  us  speak  plainly  and  without  metaphor.  Without  God  there 
is  no  religion,  without  God  and  religion  there  is  no  Ethics,  and 
without  God,  Ethics  and  Religion  there  is  no  civilization.  Eth¬ 
ics  without  God  and  piety  is  hypocrisy,  and  a  civilized  so¬ 
ciety,  a  democracy,  as  the  United  States,  can,  least  of  all  others, 
do  without  God  and  Ethics — Religion.  Therefore,  let  us  abide 
by  the  Biblical  Ethics,  made  for  man  and  world  as  they  are: 
“Holy  shall  ye  be,  for  holy  am  I,  your  God.”  And  this  will 
make  for  the  only  true,  practical  Ethics:  “Thou  shalt  love  thy 
neighbor  as  thyself”  (Leviticus,  19.18). 

MoSAISM  AND  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

In  conclusion,  let  us  consider  our  vast  theme  in  its  latest,  so¬ 
ciological  aspects  and  political  bearings.  In  this  volume,  as  iu 
the  preceding  ones,  treating  of  the  Spirit  of  the  grand  Biblical 
Legislation,  we  have  often  called  attention  to  the  important, 
historical  fact  that  the  leading  features  of  the  United  States, 
the  spirit  inherited  from  its  Pilgrim  Fathers  and  founders,  its 
patriotism,  its  constitution,  its  legislation,  all  are  in  some  sense 
the  latest  developments  from  the  principles  underlying  the  ra- 


MOSAISM  AND  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


299 


tional,  political,  religious  and  social  doctrines  of  Mosaism.  In 
final  corroboration  of  that  view,  let  us  adduce  now  the  many 
interesting  data,  culled  from  different  sources  and  grouped  to¬ 
gether  recently,  saliently  demonstrating  and  proving  by  plain, 
historical  facts,  what  we  have  hitherto  advanced  on  theoretical 
grounds,  by  argument.  We  have  shown  that  the  United  States 
has  been  built  on  Biblical  grounds  and  is  imbibed  with  Biblical 
spirit.  The  scores  of  American  Christian  sects,  from  the  zeal¬ 
ous,  ritualistic  Episcopalians  to  the  extremely  liberal  Baptists, 
the  radical  Universalists  and  Unitarians,  all  these  denomina¬ 
tions,  slowly  breaking  away  from  the  Trinitarian  Catholic 
Church  and  gradually  approaching  nearer  and  nearer,  to  the 
simple  Biblical  monotheism,  all  these  form  one  protracted  scale 
of  as  many  stations  or  grades  between  the  JSTicsean,  Orthodox, 
Trinitarian  Church  of  325  P.  Ch.  and  the  Mosaic  Bible.  Their 
tendency  and  pole  of  attraction  is  pure  Mosaism.  The  more 
they  dissent  from,  and  distance  the  first,  the  nearer  they  ap¬ 
proach  the  latter,  until  the  Unitarian  Christians  vary  but  in 
name  and  forms  from  the  Jews.  Closely  looked  at,  they  are 
in  dogmatics  and  in  ethics  Jews,  Jews  in  essence  without  the 
name;  without  the  name  and  the  local,  national  historical  cere¬ 
monialism  of  the  Jews;-  and  as  soon  as  prejudice  and  amour- 
propre  will  vanish,  they  will  coalesce.  According  to  express  Tal- 
mudical  lines  and  views,  “all  Gentiles  rejecting  idolatry,  all  who 
accept  and  acknowledge  the  One,  Spiritual,  Supreme  God-be¬ 
lief  with  the  moral  law,  all  such  stand  on  a  par  with  those  rec¬ 
ognizing  the  Thora1  fully,  and  they  participate  in  the  beatitudes 
of  the  hereafter.”  That  is  Rabbinical  doctrine,  that  was  taught 
by  the  Ilillelites,  the  Agadists  and  Nazareth:  “The  first  doctrine 
of  Israel  is,  ‘The  Eternal  is  thy  God,  he  is  one.’  The  next  is : 
‘Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself.’  ” — Let  us  prove  this 
now: 

Gray,  in  his  “Remarks  on  the  Early  Laws  of  the  Massachu¬ 
setts  Bay  Colony,”2  hints  that  the  Puritans  got  their  first  code 

'Maimonides.  Yad  Mada.  7>  p^n  C"  DPiy  JUDIN  'TDn 

npn  minn  paa  mi»  i^N3  j'y’a  -tann 

2See  Menorah,  New  York,  an  article  on  Americanism. 


300 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


of  laws,  mostly,  from  the  Books  of  Moses.” — John  Adams  re¬ 
marks:  “Their  greatest  concern  was  to  establish  a  government 
consistent  with  the  Scriptures”  (Colonial  Records  of  Massachu¬ 
setts  Bay).  In  1636  Lieutenant-Governor  Thomas  Dudley  and 
his  Committee  were  invited  “to  make  a  draft  of  laws  conform¬ 
ing  to  the  (Bible)  Word  of  God,”  which  should  serve  as  princi¬ 
ples  of  the  Commonwealth,  and  present  it  to  the  Legislature ;  in 
the  meantime  the  magistrates  were  advised  to  determine  uncer¬ 
tain  law  cases  according  to  that  “law  of  God”  (the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment). — Such  a  body  of  fundamentals  actually  was  presented  to 
it,  as  a  copy  of  “Moses  and  his  Judicials”  (Winthrop’s  Journal, 
page  22). — Further,  in  1642,  Charles  Chauncey,  later  President 
of  Harvard  College — a  great  authority  in  his  time— replied  to 
legal  questions  propounded  to  him :  “That  ye  judicials  of  Moyses 
that  are  appendances  to  ye  moral  law,  and  grounded  on  ye  law 
of  nature  and  on  ye  Decalogue,  are  immutable  and  perpetual, 
acknowledged  by  all  orthodox  divines.” — The  Massachusetts 
“Body  of  Liberties,”  established  by  the  Legislature  in  1641, 
“adopted  the  law  of  Moses  in  different  forms.” — Senator  Hoar 
says :  “They  went  so  far  as  to  give  a  double  portion  to  the  eldest 
son,  in  conformity  with  Mosaism”  (see  American  Antiquarian 
Society,  April,  1895). — Henry  Ward  Beecher  remarks:  “They 
had  the  simple,  innate  and  intense  sense  of  the  right  of  a  man 
to  himself,  before  God  and  his  fellow-men,  and  his  God  was  the 
Old  Testament  God  .  .  .  Out  of  that  grew  Hew  England  .  .  . 
Like  the  Jews,  they  scarcely  ever  separated  patriotism  from  reli¬ 
gion.  There  is  only  one  nation  on  this  Continent,  and  that  is 
the  Hew  England  one ;  that  is  the  spirit  pervading  all  the  consti¬ 
tutions  of  the  several  States  of  this  one  United  States  nation, 
and  that  are  their  fundamental  principles  ;  such  are  the  facts.” — 
Such  are  the  governments  founded  in  America  by  the  Puritans 
as  well  as  by  the  Dutch.  And  such  are  to  a  great  extent  even 
those  established  in  the  South  of  the  United  States  by  the  Eng¬ 
lish  Cavaliers.  The  scores  of  sects  of  England,  tearing  away 
from  Romanism,  needed  a  new  support,  and  that,  naturally,  was 
the  Old  Testament.  Freedom,  religion  and  hard  work  are  the 
foundations  of  all  the  American  colonies — all  three  elements 


MOSAISM  AND  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


301 


hailing  from  the  Old  Testament  Society.  That  spirit  is  per¬ 
fectly  understood,  well  grasped  and  vastly  elaborated  in  the  great 
legal  work  by  Grotius,  the  leading  Dutch  jurist. 

The  Scotch  Presbyterians  and  the  English  Roundheads  ap¬ 
parently  and  saliently  inclined  towards  the  Old  Testament.  Not 
only  did  they  reject  the  “Holy  Mother,”  the  saints,  the  cult  of 
images,  reliques,  mass,  pomp  and  vestments,  but  they  began  to 
discriminate  in  the  very  New  Testament  the  monotheistic  phases 
from  the  later  trinitarian  ones.  Without  rejecting  the  Mes¬ 
sianic  idea,  they  but  half-heartedly  and  supinely  submitted  to 
trinity.  They  gave  over  the  Septuagint  and  the  Vulgate  and 
zealously  studied  the  Hebrew  Bible,  adopted  its  phraseology,  fig¬ 
ures  of  speech  and  metaphors,  gave  verse-long  Hebraic  names 
to  their  children  and  favorite  places,  imitated  the  simplicity  and 
purity  of  the  Jewish  cult,  the  Jewish  Sabbath  and  Jewish 
home  life.  They  applied  most  hateful  names  to  the  Church  of 
Rome  and  most  endearing  ones  to  Jerusalem  and  the  Biblical 
people.  They  abhorred  whatever  savored  of  the  former  and 
cherished  everything  reminding  of  the  latter.  The  more  they 
turned  away  from  papacy,  the  nearer  they  approached  to  Mosa- 
ism.  This  was  logically  the  trend  of  the  religious  upheaval  in 
England,  and  especially  in  Scotland.  If  it  were  not  for  the  rem¬ 
nant  of  the  ancient  heathen-Gentile  prejudices  and  the  sore  ap¬ 
pearance  of  the  mediaeval  Jew,  English  Protestantism  would 
have  arrived  at — the  Old  Testament  polity.  English  radical 
Unitarianism  and  Quakerism  are  permeated  by  the  same  Bib¬ 
lical  spirit.  The  first  by  its  spirit  proper,  the  latter  rather  by 
its  idealism  and  sympathetic  feeling,  though  in  emphasizing  and 
insisting  upon  minor  ideas  and  forms  it  exaggerates  and  spoils 
its  good  intent. 

From  theology  and  cult  let  us  now  pass  to  the  political  lean¬ 
ings  of  Old  and  New  England.  The  Virginia  Bill  of  Rights, 
drafted  by  George  Mason,  upon  which  subsequently  the  Declara¬ 
tion  of  Independence  was  framed,  had  its  prototype,  almost  ver¬ 
batim,  in  an  old  Dutch  document  of  the  sixteenth  century,  so 
many  writers  opine.  Let  us  now  look  to  the  eighteenth  and 
nineteenth  centuries,  that  will  finally  show  the  present  United 


302 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


States  as  the  latest  evolution  from  the  Biblical  Society  and 
State,  the  Washington  Capitol  as  standing  on  Moriah  grounds. 
Howard  Payson  Arnold  says :  “As  in  the  estimation  of  our  fore¬ 
fathers,  the  makers  of  Hew  England,  so  in  that  of  the  makers 
of  the  United  States,  Moses  towered  high,  like  a  mighty  column, 
resting  on  dread  foundations,  led  by  Divine  Omnipotence,  never 
to  be  shaken”  .  .  .  “He  was  regarded  as  a  more  valuable  sym¬ 
bol  than  anyone  else — for  encouragement  to  good  and  terror  for 
evil  doers.”  Bishop  Warburton,  in'  his  work  (about  1750), 
says :  “The  Divine  Legislation  of  Moses  swept  over  all  Christen¬ 
dom  with  the  force  of  a  cyclone.” — Lord  Shaftesbury  regarded 
Moses  as  the  only  heart  which  had  the  character  of  being  after 
the  Almighty’s.” — Bunyan’s  portrayal  of  Moses,  the  Herculean 
Lawgiver,  puts  him  on  a  higher  plane  than  Christ.  Carlyle,  in 
his  inaugural  address  at  Edinburgh,  1866,  says:  “They  wanted 
to  make  the  Union  altogether  conformable  to  the  Hebrew  Bible, 
which  they  understood  to  be  the  ‘will  of  God.’  ” — The  three  men 
most  instrumental  in  shaping  the  destiny  of  the  American  Con¬ 
federation  undoubtedly  were  Adams,  Jefferson  and  Franklin, 
and  their  real,  personal  trend  of  mind  was  Mosaic,  not  Trini¬ 
tarian.  The  Old  Testament  spirit  moved  in  them  strongly, 
buoyantly,  openly  and  without  any  attempt  at  wearing  the  mask 
of  Orthodoxy.  The  seal  of  the  United  States  proposed  by  Ad¬ 
ams  (1776,  August  4)  was  of  Biblic-Masonic  origin,  the  Radiat¬ 
ing  Eye  of  Providence. — Franklin  proposed  as  such,  Moses  with 
his  wand  overwhelming  Pharaoh,  with  the  motto :  “Rebellion 
to  tyrants  is  obedience  to  God.” — Jefferson  proposed:  “Israel  in 
the  wilderness  with  a  dark  cloud  by  day  and  a  fire  pillar  by 
night.” — In  1787,  proposing  the  Federal  Constitution,  Frank¬ 
lin  remarked:  “A  Constitution  was  framed  for  the  Jews  by  the 
Deity  himself,  and  delivered  to  Moses  for  their  guidance.”  Ad¬ 
ams  wrote  to  his  son,  John  Quincy  Adams:  “Moses  was  the  one 
whom  the  Lord  knew  face  to  face,  and  to  whom  he  delivered  the 
Laws  for  the  Hebrews.” — When  Congress  hesitated  to  occupy 
the  extreme  American  West,  the  new  territory  of  Oregon  etc., 
Adams  called  on  the  clerk  of  the  House  to  read  from  the  Bible, 
Genesis  I.,  26.28,  “conferring  upon  man  the  right  to  occupy  the 


MOSAISM  AND  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


303 


land  and  till  it.” — The  theological  creed  and  the  humanitarian 
view  of  Lincoln  and  Garfield — not  to  mention  other  leading 
American  statesmen  of  our  own  period — their  strong  leanings 
towards  the  spirit  and  tenets  of  the  Old  Testament,  is  well 
known.  All  that  conclusively  proves  the  strong  hold  of  the 
Bible  upon  the  American  mind.  It  is  ingrained  and  nurtured 
from  its  very  birth  with  the  principles  and  doctrines,  the  tastes 
and  views  of  the  Pentateuch.  And  that  goes  evidently  to  show 
that  the  Non-Sectarian  basis  of  the  United  States  nation  and  its 
Constitution  stand  upon  Sinaic  grounds,  upon  the  teachings  of 
the  Decalogue,  upon  the  universalism  of  the  Mosaic  justice,  be¬ 
nevolence  and  human  solidarity. 

This  gives  the  cue  to  the  most'  appalling  social  upheaval  of 
recent  history.  At  these  atrocious  inter-racial  crimes  going  on 
in  Russia,  the  United  States  people  was  the  foremost  to  show  its 
indignation,  extend  its  pecuniary  aid  and  its  international  sym¬ 
pathy  to  the  victims.  It  is  the  United  States  people,  which, 
nobly  and  courageously,  took  up  the  gauntlet  flung  into  the 
blushing  face  of  this  twentieth  century,  and  flung  it  back  to 
where  it  belongs.  President  Roosevelt,  called  upon  by  a  Jewish 
Committee  to  interfere  in  behalf  of  the  Russian  victims,  said : 
“I  need  not  dwell  upon  the  widespread  indignation  with  which 
the  American  people  heard  of  the  dreadful  outrages  upon  the 
Jews  of  Kishineff  ...  I  have  never  known  of  a  more  immedi¬ 
ate  and  deeper  expression  of  sympathy  ...  It  is  natural  that 
such  a  feeling  should  be  the  most  intense  in  the  United  States, 
for  here,  from  the  very  beginning  of,  its  national  career,  most 
has  been  done  to  acknowledge  the  debt  due  to  the  Jewish  race 
and  to  do  justice  to  the  American  citizens  of  that  race  and  faith. 
American  history  well  remembers  their  great  devotion  and  patri¬ 
otism,  their  sacrifices  for  our  country,  their  bravery  and  capa¬ 
city  in  our  army,  navy  and  civil  service  during  our  own  crises 
.  .  .  Thus  I  feel  all  the  sympathy,  the  sorrow  and  the  horror 
over  the  outrage  done  to  the  Jewish  people  ...  I  am  confident 
that  much  good  has  already  been  done  by  such  manifestations 
throughout  this  country  .  .  .  And  I  will  consider  most  care¬ 
fully  the  suggestions  you  have  submitted  to  me  on  behalf  of  that 


304 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


cause.”  True,  the  President  did  not  do  anything  beyond  that 
speech,  still  that  speech  from  the  mouth  of  a  man  speaking  in 
the  name  of  eighty  millions  of  free  citizens,  is  an  important  his¬ 
torical  deed ;  had  all  the  other  rulers  of  nations  spoken  in  the 
same  strain,  Russia  would  have  come  to  its  good  senses.  In  the 
same  sense  spoke  Secretary  Hay.  Such  words  on  such  occasions 
make  history,  are  deeds,  salient  mile-posts  on  the  road  of  human 
advance,  pointing  to  the  fact  that  the  United  States  is  built  on 
Biblical  principles  and  destined  to  give  a  country  and  a  home  to 
the  homeless  Biblical  people.1 

Less  salient  and  open,  still  potent  and  real,  is  the  influence 
of  Mosaism  on  the  European  Western  world. 

There  the  fogs  of  prejudice,  race  and  domination,  veil  and 
obscure,  in  part,  that  Biblical  tendency,  as  very  often  a  trifling 
feud  in  a  family  for  long  blasts  it  and  becomes  very  venomous 
and  dangerous  to  its  growth.  Nevertheless,  the  beneficent  bear¬ 
ing  of  the  Bible  upon  the  entire  Western  civilization  is  potent 
and  powerful.  The  horizon  is  ever  vaster  and  brighter  than 
the  clouds  beneath.  In  spite  of  the  predominant  sectarianism 
and  bigotry,  no  doubt  can  be  entertained  that  the  entire  West 
of  the  globe  is  impregnated  with  the  Mosaic  ethics,  theology, 
views  and  ideals,  infinitely  more  so,  than  with  the  poetry  and 
the  mythology  of  Persia,  Greece  and  Rome.  Such  Biblical  eth¬ 
ics,  beliefs,  patterns  and  habits  of  thought  and  life  are  the  real 
strength  and  backbone  of  the  Christian  world.  Its  many  Greek, 
Alexandrian  and  Asian  trappings  and  popular  notions  are  fad¬ 
ing  away,  gradually  disappearing.  And  what  is  permanent  and 
stable  there,  its  real  pith,  marrow  and  backbone,  is  the  pro¬ 
phetic  Society,  State,  family,  Church,  its  viewpoint,  doctrine 
and  practice.  It  is  its  purified  God-belief,  the  norm  of  the  Ten 
Words,  the  ethics  of  Leviticus  19th,  the  weekly  rest,  the  yearly 
holidays,  the  principles  of  human  freedom,  equality,  dignity, 
right,  duty  and  work — the  Biblical  democracy.  And  these  are 
bound,  sooner  or  later,  to  conquer  the  mediaeval  and  the  ancient 

‘Hon.  Simon  Wolf  published  an  excellent  book  with  the  biography  of 
thousands  of  Jews  who  fought  in  the  United  States’  armies  for  freedom  and 
national  independence. 


MOSIS’  HAMMER  /AND  NAIL. 


305 


regimes  and  create  the  United  States  of  the  World,  with  mono¬ 
theism  and  a  fraternizing  humanity.  That  world  with  that 
pacified  society  cannot  long  defer  gladly  to  recognize  Israel’s 
championship  of  the  Western  civilization  and  his  honorable  citi¬ 
zenship  in  their  midst. 

Mosis’  Hammer  and  Hail. 

Let  us  conclude  this  treatise  with  the  words  of  a  well-known 
poet  and  jurist,  satirist  and  philosopher,  a  man  with  a  deep  in¬ 
sight  into  human  nature,  history,  law  and  socio-political  institu¬ 
tions ;  a  writer  of  Jewish  extraction,  wayward  and  erratic  from 
abundance  of  genius,  coupled  with  anguish  and  the  distress  of 
circumstances,  not  yet  sufficiently  appreciated  by  most  biogra¬ 
phers  of  Hebraic  men  of  genius;  a  Jewish  man  at  the  bottom 
of  his  soul  and  the  height  of  his  mind ;  with  a  poet’s  heart  over¬ 
flowing  with  humanity,  the  bitter  sting  and  sardonic  laugh¬ 
ter  of  the  disappointed  satirist  and  worldling ;  humorous  in  form 
but  profoundly  earnest,  yea,  tragic  in  reality.  Such  a  many- 
sided  genius,  contemplating  the  stupendous  work  of  Mosaism, 
with  the  eyes  of  a  Mirabeau,  Adams,  Jefferson  and  Franklin, 
deemed  it  to  be  the  grandest,  sublimest,  ancient  effort  for  human 
emancipation,  redemption  and  elevation.  He  closed  his  solid, 
though  seemingly  humorous,  appreciation  of  this  masterly  legis¬ 
lation  with  the  following  admiring  and  scathing  words,  well 
applicable  to  our  own  times  and  self-constituted  Higher  Critics, 
who,  from  misunderstanding,  prejudice  and  flippancy,  miscon¬ 
strue  and  underrate  that  code.  He  says :  “I  had  not  been  very 
fond  of  Moses,  probably,  because  of  the  Hellenic  spirit  predom¬ 
inant  in  me,  and  I  could  never  pardon  the  legislator  of  the 
Jews  his  hatred  of  the  plastic  arts.  I  did  not  realize  that  he 
was,  nevertheless,  a  great  artist  himself,  and  of  the  best  type. 
Only  this  artistic  sense  was,  with  him,  as  with  his  Egyptian 
countrymen,  ever  directed  towards  the  colossal  and  the  imper¬ 
ishable.  But  he  formed  his  art-works,  not  as  the  Egyptians,  in 
stone  and  granite;  no,  he  built  men-pyramids,  he  chiseled  men- 
obelisks.  He  took  a  poor  shepherd-tribe  and  moulded  it  into  a 
people  predestined,  as  those  pyramids,  to  defy  the  centuries ;  a 


306 


HUMANITY,  BENEVOLENCE  ETC.  OF  PENTATEUCH. 


great,  eternal  and  holy  people,  a  people  of  God,  that  was  to 
serve  as  a  pattern  to  all  the  nations ;  yea,  as  the  prototype  of 
all  mankind.  He  created  Israel !  He  may  well  boast  to  have 
erected  a  monument  to  outlive  all  other  casts  formed  in  ore  or 
marble  .  .  .  Liberty  was  ever  the  supreme  thought  of  the 
great  emancipator,  and  this  thought  breathes  and  flames  in  all 
his  institutions  .  .  .  bearing  upon  pauperism  .  .  .  Slavery  he 
hated  above  all.  Still,  he  could  not  entirely  eradicate  either 
slavery  or  pauperism ;  they  were  too  deeply  rooted  in  those 
hoary  times.  So  he  had  to  be  satisfied  with  limiting  and  miti¬ 
gating  them  by  legal  provisions.  But  if  a  slave  was  so  mean 
as  to  insist  upon  his  servitude  and  to  stay  therein,  in  spite  of 
the  law  that  enfranchised  him,  then  the  lawgiver  ordained  that 
such  an  incorrigible  and  servile  scamp  be  bored  in  and  nailed 
by  his  ear  to  the  doorpost  of  his  master’s  mansion ;  after  which 
shameful  exhibition  he  was  to  remain  and  forever  to  stay  a 
slave.  O  Mosha  Rabenu ,  Moses  our  Teacher,  thou  scourge  of  ty¬ 
rants,  friend  of  the  people  and  noble  opponent  of  slavery,  let 
me  have  thy  hammer  and  nails,  that  I  may  nail  our  various 
pedants,  hyper-critics,  agnostics  and  obstinate  slaves,  attired  in 
their  gaudy  lackey-livery.  Let  me  bore  their  long  ears  and  nail 
them  solidly  down  to  the  Brandenburg-gates  of  sensationalism, 
infidelity  and  anti-Semitism.  They  are  so  stubborn  and  ob¬ 
tuse  !  They  have  well  listened  in  the  Sunday-school  and  heard 
the  voice  on  Sinai :  ‘I  am  thy  God ;  thou  shalt  not  steal,  not 
adulterate,  not  supplant,  not  covet!’  nevertheless,  they  insist 
upon  such  perpetrations  even  on  holy  ground.  Let  them  be 
bored  by  their  long  ears;”1  that  they  may  improve,  better  lis¬ 
ten  and  learn  that  it  is  more  to  the  honor  of  religion,  the  testi¬ 
mony  of  long  and  venerable  ages  and  the  positive  advantage  of 
our  Western  civilization,  that  monotheism,  the  Decalogue,  the 
free  State,  yea  the  entire  Biblical  Legislation  come  from  Moses 
and  Judaea,  than  from  Gudea  and  Hammurabi,  Babylon  or 
Heliopolis. 

’ll.  M.,  21.6,  and  V.  M.,  4.17;  Rashi  ad  locum:  That  ear  that  heard  at 
Sinai :  Thou  shalt  not  steal !  and  yet  did  steal — shall  be  bored.  Heine  on 
that. 


END. 


ERRATA. 


Page  5,  bottom,  read  “first  of  trilogy”  instead  of  “firm  of  trilogy. 
Page  103,  top,  read  just  “mean”  instead  of  “  means,” 

Page  128,  bottom,  read  “Bible  and”  instead  of  “Bib  leand.” 

Page  142,  top,  read  “members”  instead  of  “numbers.” 

Page  143,  bottom,  read  “ Founder ”  instead  of  “Fournier.” 

Page  226,  omit  the  17th  line  as  superfluous. 


DATE  DUE 

■N 

GAYLORD 

PRINT  EO  IN  U  S  A 

’ !  "**  %  Vi? 


